Don't worry, Ian. I'm not making the same mistakes again! est 2016.
 
HomeMainframeCalendarJurassic Mainframe NewsFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog inJurassic-Pedia

Share | 
 

 Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 3144
Points : 3791
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:53 pm

As a producer, Steven Spielberg doesn't do much. He basically sat while Joe Johnston ran JP3 to the ground, does the same thing with the Transformers movie series(except for firing Megan Fox), and I really think that JW would have been the same without him. To me, it seems that he doesn't really care about the movie franchise anymore, except for the money. Somebody on a Facebook group say it's because he doesn't want to interfere with new talent, but there are times when one has to interfere. Let's face it, the Transformers movie series and JP3 would have been far better if he didn't just sit back and do nothing. So I say that Universal Studios should just cut him loose.

Anybody else think this way? I admit that it's a bit cold considering how made it movie franchise, but if he's not interested in the movie series as he was, then I don't any reason why he should stay.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
TheRexMan22
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 288
Points : 833
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2016-06-08
Location : A Farm

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:57 pm

If he's not interested in or devoted to the franchise anymore, then I agree he should go. Unless he's actually doing something - then he should stay.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BoulderFaceplant
Hatchling
Hatchling


Posts : 71
Points : 391
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2017-01-16

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:36 pm

I'd like Spielberg to step down. He's evidently more of a liability than anything else at this point. Keep in mind that before the the Indominus Rex was made a hybrid by the screenwriters, Spielberg wanted it to be a "real" dinosaur that was never before discovered. As in, a super-badass weapon monster that evolved naturally.

Spielberg is also responsible for cutting out portions of Zach and Gray's journey, including the following exchange (paraphrasing):

Zach: I guess this is where we'd be if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct.
Gray: If the dinosaurs didn't go extinct we wouldn't be here at all.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BarrytheOnyx
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 942
Points : 1524
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2016-06-17
Age : 25
Location : Stratford Upon Avon, England

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:47 am

I think he should remain a behind-the-scenes producer; negotiate with Universal on behalf of the franchise and ensure it doesn't become another studio-driven franchise with hireling directors. I think he should also have a part in looking out for prospective talent like J.A. Bayona, who may yet prove to be the best director for the franchise after Spielberg himself in his prime. Perhaps I am overestimating his abilities, but I believe he still has a part to play, albeit an increasingly small one. The other thing is, if Spielberg pulls out, there's a chance that Amblin Entertainment, the home studio for the franchise, pulls out with him.

But Spielberg taking part in it on a creative level, especially if that means his ideas include the absurd Malasaurus or the now often-derided Gyrospheres, might be problematic. Sometimes they pan out well enough, like the Mosasaurus or the human/Raptor relationships and both could have been portrayed much worse all things considered. With the case of Colin Trevorrow, he pretty much needed his advice in order to make a film could be considered a legitimate extension of the Jurassic franchise, if not necessarily a great one. Bayona, however, is a man with his own style and approach to things, I hope he, Trevorrow and Spielberg don't clash over their opinions over the course of the movie's production.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dead2009
Administrator
Administrator
avatar

Posts : 1258
Points : 1894
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : Maryland

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:31 am

If it werent for Spielberg I doubt we honestly would of gotten Jurassic World, so in a sense, yes he's still needed.

_______________
Last Movie Watched: Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992).
Last TV Show Watched: Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (S3:E2).
Last Video Game Played: NBA Live 18 (XBO).
http://bloggerofthedead.blogspot.com/​
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:42 am

Schindler's List should have been his final appearance in the industry, as that was his last masterpiece. Then he would have had nearly faultless filmography & blockbuster resume. He could've spent the last 20 years just bowling, yet still having the fame of golden touch.

Now he's an old man occasionally doing alright films between producing crap.
Back to top Go down
Scott B
Gallimimus
Gallimimus
avatar

Posts : 224
Points : 762
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2016-06-11
Age : 27
Location : I am Everywhere

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:55 pm

Spielberg gets his name plastered on everything because it guarantees money. He doesn't have a hand in 90% of those projects apart from contributing money as an exec producer which is pretty much all that position does. Producer is a different job entirely.

Spielberg can probably go just for the fact Universal can easily find someone else to front cash. But they will lose the cachet of his name on it. He already handed control to Trevorrow for the process. He isn't needed like he was for JW and ///.

Barry--Amblin wouldn't pull out even if he did unless they had a falling out and Universal would side with Steven on that anyway.

Saving Private Ryan should have been best picture in 1997 and he won best director for it, so Schindler's wasn't the end for him. And then there was Band of Brothers that he produced and the Pacific.

I am not saying you are wrong--in fact I agree that he should have stopped his obsession with historical dramas and done a lot fewer pictures or stuck with popcorn flicks...or just be less safe with his stuff. Schindler's List and SVR are far from safe if you are wondering--but his filmography after Schindler's List isn't horrendous and his filmography before that was far from perfect, he might have more misses before than after actually.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 3144
Points : 3791
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:03 pm

@Scott B wrote:


Saving Private Ryan should have been best picture in 1997 and he won best director for it, so Schindler's wasn't the end for him. And then there was Band of Brothers that he produced and the Pacific.

I am not saying you are wrong--in fact I agree that he should have stopped his obsession with historical dramas and done a lot fewer pictures or stuck with popcorn flicks....

To be honest, I think the historical drama angle is going to be his main thing directing wise (if it isn't already) if Indiana Jones 5 does poorly. Kind of like how low-budget horror movies have become Shyamalan's main thing after 'The Last Airbender' and 'After Earth' did so bad. (Though in fairness, you have to also blame Will Smith for the last one listed.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:07 pm

Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'. And rest have been either mediocre, trash or I haven't bothered watching because the premises look boring or they've got bad reviews. I suppose I could watch Lincoln and Munich which have been ranked pretty well by critics but the subject matters of those two don't interest me one bit.
Back to top Go down
Spinosaur4.4
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 878
Points : 1426
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : My cubby room aka My world

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:02 am

No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 3144
Points : 3791
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:42 pm

@Mistral wrote:
Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'.

When it comes to Saving Private Ryan you are in a very small minority.

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...

If the homocraptors idea had been introduced, then that would have repulsed the fanbase far more then what the JP3 Spinosaurus ever did.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:15 pm

Yeah well I'm not a fan of war movies, except Schindler's List, Downfall and Das Boot which I really like, but those are more dramas with war background. Das Boot is prob the only one that goes full force into specific war directory.

Full Metal Jacket is the same as Private Ryan with me, amazing start and then the rest is just okay
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:59 am

Is Spielberg still planning to do adaptations of Pirate Latitudes and Micro? He's had the rights for years now, yet has done absolutely nothing with them. Which is a shame, because as much as I don't really care of his other modern projects, those two I am -or would be- looking forward to.

Particularly PL, not only because I absolutely love the novel and the characters in it, but it would also have great potential in become one of the first historically accurate pirate films. Well at least if they removed the kraken monster and fiddled around with some details. Realism is often forgotten in pirate adaptations, and then you get fairy tales. This wouldn't have to be.

Micro, you could do good things with that as well even if the source material isn't the strongest. But if Honey I Shrunk the Kids managed to make shrunken people meeting giant bugs in micro world fun, then Spielberg should be able to do that as well almost 30 years later. Should be...

If Michael was still around I bet Steven would have started earlier. Besides JP, Crichton's great novels have almost always turned into complete horse **** on film, Timeline obviously being the most horrendous example, so we really need some justice.

Maybe soon Spielberg will get rights for Dragon Teeth as well, only to forget that one too confused
Back to top Go down
Scott B
Gallimimus
Gallimimus
avatar

Posts : 224
Points : 762
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2016-06-11
Age : 27
Location : I am Everywhere

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:47 pm

He always has like a dozen projects running at once. Some will be dropped like Interstellar and Magnificent Seven, others will just take years like Lincoln.

He has the Halo show, Montezuma, Ready Player One, Indy 5 and a couple other projects to go between now and 2019. So it likely won't be for years unless he shifts the work to someone else. He just acquired Micro last year.


Would like to see Micro before Latitudes though. Even though it barely feels like a true Crichton novel and the narrative switch is jarring in the middle, it feels far more imaginative than Pirates and is something done rarely unlike pirates. Had my fill after POTC and they have another coming out (plus I didn't like the characterization of pretty much anyone in that book but the Captain Hunter.). And this is me saying this and I love history. Only Pirate story I'd be interested in seeing is something akin to Uncharted 4.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:04 pm

Both Timeline and Micro use same plot and character and detail structures as Jurassic Park (I'll make a list for ya all sooner or later on the novel section). Now whereas Timeline actually utilizes them perfectly as well as gives it own spin + does justice to the medieval society, Micro feels bit of a mess with ideas half thought through. Now obviously the other author filling in doesn't exactly help, but even the core idea felt not properly refined.

Uncharted 4 style thing would be another cartoony fantasy take on pirates we''ve seen hundred times before. Sure PL narrative story may be familiar and the characters remisnicent of old adventure serials, but the world itself is accurate (apart from the monster).

Anyway, the amazing audiobook I've heard of it enchances it all by 110%, I'm not sure if I'd enjoy it much if I just read it.
Back to top Go down
Scott B
Gallimimus
Gallimimus
avatar

Posts : 224
Points : 762
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2016-06-11
Age : 27
Location : I am Everywhere

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:12 pm

I am not talking about plot or structure which I admitted was weak.

I don't mean the game, I mean the events behind the game (Henry Avery and Thomas Tew raiding mughal ships--which is actually sort of the plot of the completely fictional Pirate Latitudes. In this case Uncharted would be the more historically accurate film in depiction and actual events). Actually, I felt Hunter's crew and the Spaniards left a lot to be desired. Sir James was so-so. Essentially became Magnificent Seven on the high seas. It was fairly obvious this was an early Crichton novel.

Yeah a good audio version helps. I listen to that for TLW rather than reading now for instance. Makes that better.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:34 pm

The plot was fictional but plausible (again apart from obvious). The rest are opinions

Anyway
http://www.zam.com/article/539/the-pirate-republics-that-inspired-uncharted-4s-libertalia
Back to top Go down
Scott B
Gallimimus
Gallimimus
avatar

Posts : 224
Points : 762
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2016-06-11
Age : 27
Location : I am Everywhere

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:14 pm

Cool article. Can see the influences on the game and Michael's novel.

Ben Hornigold's story sounds like Hunter. Just targeting the Spanish Galleon instead of "pyrates".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Spinosaur4.4
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 878
Points : 1426
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : My cubby room aka My world

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:31 pm

@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Mistral wrote:
Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'.

When it comes to Saving Private Ryan you are in a very small minority.

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...

If the homocraptors idea had been introduced, then that would have repulsed the fanbase far more then what the JP3 Spinosaurus ever did.
Spinosaurus did nothing wrong. Maybe the screenwriters/director did. If people can't accept the fact that there were more cool and bigger theropods than T.rex, that's their problem.


We almost got homocraptors, thank that stuff leaked and people bashed it a lot...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 3144
Points : 3791
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:35 pm

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Mistral wrote:
Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'.

When it comes to Saving Private Ryan you are in a very small minority.

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...

If the homocraptors idea had been introduced, then that would have repulsed the fanbase far more then what the JP3 Spinosaurus ever did.
Spinosaurus did nothing wrong. Maybe the screenwriters/director did. If people can't accept the fact that there were more cool and bigger theropods than T.rex, that's their problem.

Except that Horner based it off dubious/paltry remains. And let's not forget his notoriuos anti-T.rex bias. I still say it should have been handled where it wiped out some of the raptors, the Ceratosaurus, fought the T. rex and the camera pulled out without anybody finding out who won. The ambiguous ending.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Spinosaur4.4
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 878
Points : 1426
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : My cubby room aka My world

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:41 pm

@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Mistral wrote:
Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'.

When it comes to Saving Private Ryan you are in a very small minority.

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...

If the homocraptors idea had been introduced, then that would have repulsed the fanbase far more then what the JP3 Spinosaurus ever did.
Spinosaurus did nothing wrong. Maybe the screenwriters/director did. If people can't accept the fact that there were more cool and bigger theropods than T.rex, that's their problem.

Except that Horner based it off dubious/paltry remains. And let's not forget his notoriuos anti-T.rex bias. I still say it should have been handled where it wiped out some of the raptors, the Ceratosaurus, fought the T. rex and the camera pulled out without anybody finding out who won. The ambiguous ending.
T.rex isn't 100% accurate on JP and no one says a thing. The raptors aren't 100% accurate too. Why can't the Spinosaurus be innacurate too? And I'm really sorry, but I can understand where the anti-T.rex on Horner comes from. It's not right, of course, but I can see why he got so tired and just said "screw everything, I'm going to kill this thing". Some paleontologists have bias and like to overestimate stuff, specially when it's from a famous dinosaur, and this is not cool.

The fight shouldn't even happen, period.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 3144
Points : 3791
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:48 pm

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Mistral wrote:
Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'.

When it comes to Saving Private Ryan you are in a very small minority.

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...

If the homocraptors idea had been introduced, then that would have repulsed the fanbase far more then what the JP3 Spinosaurus ever did.
Spinosaurus did nothing wrong. Maybe the screenwriters/director did. If people can't accept the fact that there were more cool and bigger theropods than T.rex, that's their problem.

Except that Horner based it off dubious/paltry remains. And let's not forget his notoriuos anti-T.rex bias. I still say it should have been handled where it wiped out some of the raptors, the Ceratosaurus, fought the T. rex and the camera pulled out without anybody finding out who won. The ambiguous ending.
T.rex isn't 100% accurate on JP and no one says a thing. The raptors aren't 100% accurate too. Why can't the Spinosaurus be innacurate too? And I'm really sorry, but I can understand where the anti-T.rex on Horner comes from. It's not right, of course, but I can see why he got so tired and just said "screw everything, I'm going to kill this thing". Some paleontologists have bias and like to overestimate stuff, specially when it's from a famous dinosaur, and this is not cool.

The fight shouldn't even happen, period.

I still think if it happened as I mentioned, then it would have been more accepted. Also, that really winded up hurting Horner's views, which were always on dubious ground and have been discredited, with the GA since they eventually saw though it. Applying your ideas heavy-handedly more often then not can have the opposite effect and hurt, if not ruin your cause.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Spinosaur4.4
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 878
Points : 1426
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : My cubby room aka My world

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:52 pm

@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Mistral wrote:
Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'.

When it comes to Saving Private Ryan you are in a very small minority.

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...

If the homocraptors idea had been introduced, then that would have repulsed the fanbase far more then what the JP3 Spinosaurus ever did.
Spinosaurus did nothing wrong. Maybe the screenwriters/director did. If people can't accept the fact that there were more cool and bigger theropods than T.rex, that's their problem.

Except that Horner based it off dubious/paltry remains. And let's not forget his notoriuos anti-T.rex bias. I still say it should have been handled where it wiped out some of the raptors, the Ceratosaurus, fought the T. rex and the camera pulled out without anybody finding out who won. The ambiguous ending.
T.rex isn't 100% accurate on JP and no one says a thing. The raptors aren't 100% accurate too. Why can't the Spinosaurus be innacurate too? And I'm really sorry, but I can understand where the anti-T.rex on Horner comes from. It's not right, of course, but I can see why he got so tired and just said "screw everything, I'm going to kill this thing". Some paleontologists have bias and like to overestimate stuff, specially when it's from a famous dinosaur, and this is not cool.

The fight shouldn't even happen, period.

I still think if it happened as I mentioned, then it would have been more accepted. Also, that really winded up hurting Horner's views, which were always on dubious ground and have been discredited, with the GA since they eventually saw though it. Applying your ideas heavy-handedly more often then not can have the opposite effect and hurt, if not ruin your cause.
Yeah he was biased too, and that's why bias on paleontology sucks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 3144
Points : 3791
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:08 pm

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
@Rhedosaurus wrote:
@Mistral wrote:
Directing wise, and post 1993... Minority Report was pretty good. As were Terminal and Private Ryan (if only for the amazing opening). However nothing 'great'.

When it comes to Saving Private Ryan you are in a very small minority.

@Spinosaur4.4 wrote:
No, let's remember he's the one that wanted hybrids, homocraptors and trained raptors...

If the homocraptors idea had been introduced, then that would have repulsed the fanbase far more then what the JP3 Spinosaurus ever did.
Spinosaurus did nothing wrong. Maybe the screenwriters/director did. If people can't accept the fact that there were more cool and bigger theropods than T.rex, that's their problem.

Except that Horner based it off dubious/paltry remains. And let's not forget his notoriuos anti-T.rex bias. I still say it should have been handled where it wiped out some of the raptors, the Ceratosaurus, fought the T. rex and the camera pulled out without anybody finding out who won. The ambiguous ending.
T.rex isn't 100% accurate on JP and no one says a thing. The raptors aren't 100% accurate too. Why can't the Spinosaurus be innacurate too? And I'm really sorry, but I can understand where the anti-T.rex on Horner comes from. It's not right, of course, but I can see why he got so tired and just said "screw everything, I'm going to kill this thing". Some paleontologists have bias and like to overestimate stuff, specially when it's from a famous dinosaur, and this is not cool.

The fight shouldn't even happen, period.

I still think if it happened as I mentioned, then it would have been more accepted. Also, that really winded up hurting Horner's views, which were always on dubious ground and have been discredited, with the GA since they eventually saw though it. Applying your ideas heavy-handedly more often then not can have the opposite effect and hurt, if not ruin your cause.
Yeah he was biased too, and that's why bias on paleontology sucks.

I'm still surprised that he was even allowed to come back for JW. Not only because of that scene, but because of how all his recent theories (Torosaurus=Full grown bull Trike, boneheads not being able to headbutt each others skulls, still maintaining how Spinosaurus was a super predator until the recent description) have been disproven.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BarrytheOnyx
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 942
Points : 1524
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2016-06-17
Age : 25
Location : Stratford Upon Avon, England

PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:05 pm

I know this isn't technically a Spielberg related post, but it has a degree of bearing on the subject of executive producers leaving the franchise. A while back, Thomas Tull was announced to be leaving the production of the Jurassic World trilogy and it was placed on the general 'Sequel News' thread. However, upon listening to the recent Jurassic Outpost podcast, my eyebrows went up in surprise. Here's the YouTube link below:



@26:23; is where they start talking about Thomas Tull and Legendary backing out as well as the reasons why Tull was cut out of the loop after a series of failed Universal blockbuster investments. And @28:18 they talk about the controversial changes Tull brought to the production, such as pushing for more CGI over animatronics, having been inspired by the impressive CG work in Godzilla. That explains why Trevorrow had to really push for just one animatronic scene with the Apatosaurus, because Tull was partially involved very early on in dictating the visual effects of the film because of another one of his films being successful for it's CGI creatures.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?   

Back to top Go down
 
Do we really need Steven Spielberg anymore?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Jurassic Mainframe Forums :: The Franchise :: Film Universe :: JW: Fallen Kingdom Talk-
Jump to: