What would it take from JP5...

What would it take from JP5 to be...

1] Your favorite JP film?
2] Your 2nd favorite JP film?
3] Your 3rd favorite JP film?
4] Your 4th favorite JP film?
5] Your 5th and least favorite JP film?

You can answer with any criteria you can come up with, whether it's based on JP5 qualities itself or your personal existing hierarchy of the past films

Additional queries, which are more general:

6] With JP5, what rough $$$ estimation would you qualify as "box office success" for Universal?
7] With JP5, what rough $$$ estimation would you qualify as "box office disaster" for Universal?
8] What qualities would it require from JP5 to become the best received JP sequel among general audiences and critics?
9] What qualities would it require from JP5 to become the worst received JP sequel among general audiences and critics?
10] Do you believe the scientific community will be pleased with JP5?

You can answer to all of these or just selected ones you want.

1. Everything about the movie being perfect
2. Having imaginative and bold ideas for the plot
3. Some great characterization, especially a great villain
4. Spending the entire movie on Nublar
5. A militarized dinosaurs plot and having hybrids prominently feature

6. Anything above $1 billion
7. Anything under $800 million
8. Less silly-sounding ideas and better characterization than JW
9. Having a plot even more boring than JP3
10. No

Nothing will touch the first 3 for me I don't think, because in my head nothing touches nostalgia. For it to beat JW it won't have to do too much. 

I like JW. But it's missing something. The movie needs to finally move the plot forward in a major way other than humans getting chased by dinosaurs after being stranded. I'm tired of that being the main focus of every sequel. Ok technically in JW they aren't stranded... and I like the idea that they did have more of an objective near the end. But still. I need more story about the world and what's going on behind the scenes to go along with it. Not just a tease here and there. 

I need animatronics.
I need more suspenseful scenes 
I need a Dilophosaurus!! 

I can keep on but off the top of my head that's what I want.

1. If it balances flawless technicals and masterful storytelling on the level of the first film, every dinosaur scene is an amazing encounter, and manages to have as few plot holes and gaffs as possible, then yes we have a new favourite.
2. Imaginative plot, great characterization, excellent use of dinosaurs, balancing being a thoroughly entertaining summer movie with being a serious science fiction story with nuance.
3. Some good characterization, plenty of fun action and atmosphere, a return of old favourite dinosaurs, but less emphasis is placed on the science fiction.
4. Lack of character development, lack of stand-out scenes, and any new ideas gets lost in the shuffle in favour of retreading familiar story beats.
5. Militarized dinosaurs plot and hybrids galore, pretty what you might expect from a McG or Michael Bay directed Jurassic film.

6. Over $1 Billion
7. Under $800 Million
8. More developed characters, going for suspense over spectacle and a more grounded story
9. Uninspired story and preachy messages.
10. Unless there's a token new dinosaur with feathers, then no.

This is a very interesting discussion. For reference my list of JP filma goes as follows:
1 JP
2 Tlw
3. JW
4 JP3

For JP5/JW2 to be the best movie in the franchise it has to pull out all of the stops. Firstly it needs to go back to it's technological roots and improve the quality of the CGI. JP's CGI was groundbreaking and was amazing for its time. I need to be wowed by the CGI throughout the entire film (that's the key part) for it to be better than the first two in that department. It also has to use practical effects to the film's advantage and a full return of the animatronics.

The story has to be meaty, this franchise hasn't moved anywhere forward since TLW. JP3's story could have been nothing more than a random footnote on some military officer's desk and JW just barely kicked that concept up a notch. I don't want to see militarized dinos and i certainly don't want another "big bad dinosaur" as the main threat. What would be a satisfying story to me would involve using and experimenting on dinosaurs for human applications (pet compies, triceratop farms, T.rex steroids, etc.) Also, we need much better dialogue, "we need more teeth" is not going to cut it the second time around.

The music also has to be something fresh. I don't want to hear the same musical themes again. They need to innovate, much like what Williams did with TLW's soundtrack. He found a way to make it sound completely different from JP and yet at the same time make it feel like a JP esque score.

The filmmakers need to also utilize on location filming or learn to build highly detailed sets like the 05 King Kong. There also needs to be a mood to the environment, JP3 and JW to an extent lacked this. Hopefully some horror elements can also be added like tension, suspense occasional surprise, and fear.

For it to be better than JP it needs to hit all of those criteria on top of top notch acting and a little JP magic. Im not sure what it would take to be better than TLW but not as good as JP. To be better than JW but worse than TLW it would need better dialogue, better CGI, and no big baddie but not have as solid of a plot as TLW or the score, atmosphere, mood, etc. To be worse than JW it just rehashes many JW elements, has another new super predator, relies on hybrids and has the same or worse dialogue. To be the worst in the franchise it would have to make JP3 look good and the only way to do that is the militarized dinosaurs or have the plot transition into the whole "homocraptors" story as some people have theorized (trust me there's weight for this but that's for another thread.)

For it to be a success it woulsd depend on the budget and for it to be a flop it'd have to only barely make money or break even. As a side note both the scientific community or the general audience will never be pleased together. It's either feathers and face a fan/g.a backlash or not have feathers and be panned as not accurate by science.

To be the best film in the franchise, it would have to be better than JP.

To be the second best film in the franchise, it would have to be better than JW.

To be the third best film in the franchise, it would have to be better than TLW.

To be the fourth best film in the franchise, it would have to be better than JP3.

o be the film in the franchise.....You get the point.

I only really have feelings on these two.

8] What qualities would it require from JP5 to become the best received JP sequel among general audiences and critics?

- I would say the best thing they can do is captivate the old and new fans with the right blend of action, suspense, and a well thought plot. They should capture parts of the original film and the newer film to sell to both age groups. I think well directed/filmed action sequences broken up by meaningful story and development would be perfect. Lets learn about the characters, the park, and the dinosaurs but when its time for crap to hit the fan, make the scenes real and put us at the edge of our seats.

9] What qualities would it require from JP5 to become the worst received JP sequel among general audiences and critics?

I think if they continued the way they went with JW. I'm barely a fan though it has grown on me. However, the film feels so "hollow" in depth/plot. Some of the action scenes were pretty good but they ruined some of the realism I was expecting.

Well, from my perspective, it is impossible to overtake JP in the #1 spot, and that goes for any flick in the world. There is absolutely no question about that. It is in the league of it's own.

So right at the start the highest possible position for JP5 to achieve is #2. Now, given that I don't really love TLW, in fact not even think of it as great film but merely as "alright", you'd think such feat to not that difficult of a task at all. And in a way, it isn't. What you just need is a good solid sit through that I enjoy and that I can see enjoying years later. However, TLW even with it's faults, at least has all the excuses of being the very first sequel. JP5 does not have the same liberties. So even if the new film would have flawless execution in every other area of film making, be it in cinematography and characters and action and effects and whatever else, if the old "island dinosaur escape" and other very much rehashed theme lines from the 90's are there again in any meaningful form, it will rank immediately below the #2 spot. I do not appreciate seeing the same thing over and over again - something needs to happen finally to break off the generic formula chains. That is the benchmark of reaching number #2. On top of that almost all of the aspects that made me hate JW would have to be removed and turned into workable solutions, including technical aspects which means making it look like a film and not video game. And from everything I've seen of the production and rumored premise so far, it strongly suggests that there needs to be a miracle to reach this level. I suppose it's still possible, it's not really asking *that much*, but I'm not believing in it.

Now, spot #3 is the hot seat. This is the realistic best chance as far as I'm concerned, and I said the same for JW when the new park premise was leaked for the first time. To beat JP3, but still rank below TLW, I merely need a competent film. There can be semi-serious flaws in places, but not so much that one can make giant list of them. What you need first off is decent coherent plot and themes that actually move the series ahead as whole and have some sort of meaning, even if it's minor. On top of that, likeable characters, proper animatronics, no in-your-face fanservice, and canon/continuum of TLW/JP3 should not be totally ignored again. The Nublar return would have to be only a very minor part.

For #4, the requirements really aren't that high. Just something generic that resembles somewhat/barely passable product there or thereabouts. I don't know what else to add there.

Finally to be in the last position #5 would require it to be total and utter garbage. It's yet unclear to me how this could be managed to be achieved.

1&2 are impossible. The first one is a classic and TLW is the first JP movie that I actually saw in a theater.

3. It would basically have to have better character development, go back to Sorna or some other island that's yet to be explored, a puppetmaster behind Wu and Hoskins be reveled, decent fanservice but not too much, more animatronics, more Triceratops, preferably an alpha male winning a fight against either an Allosaurus via the original 1925 version of 'The Lost World' or a large Ceratosaurus via One Million Years BC. This would also serve as an homage to the dinosaur movies of old. Meaningful story.

4. Basically marginably better then JW.

5. It would have to share JP3 for this spot since I hate that movie. The only way how it can be just as bad if not slightly worse is if it were to introduce dino-human hybrids, completely ignores the fans (a la JP3) and kills every character and dinosaur which would render the movie series pointless via 'What was the point of it all if it all got wiped out' way.

6. $1.2-$1.4 billion

7. $600 million or below

8. What I said for 4.

9. What I said for 5.

10. Unless Jack Horner got fired and replaced by Robbert Bakker, Thomas Holtz, or Scott Harmann, the answer is no. Horner was the big reason for the major drop in even the basics, via the Stegosaurus and Triceratops with their tails drooping. Besides, he has been wrong on most things since 20 years: T. rex being a slow moving scavenger (largerly discredited), Spinosaurus being a super predator(based on poor fossil remains and his anti-T. rex bias), Torosaurus=Full grown bull Triceratops (based on limited Torosaurus remains compared to the massive amount of Triceratops fossils) that the bone-headed dinosaurs couldn't butt heads (which was recently proven wrong) and that their thick skulls were the bases of horns (which were also discredited).

Hmmmm 

Dinosaur diversity, first and all, put more dinosaur species, unique ones that never appeared in a JP franchise, instead of just the old famous ones. No useless kids. No divorce drama. Characters that appear real and have depth, including the villains, characters that you can see why he/she acts that way, even if you disagree with. Character development too. Make herbivores less than just "cows" and make them what they really were, powerfull creatures that wouldn't let a T.rex f*ck around with them. Like sauropods or a ceratopsid action scenes, it would be very interesting to see that. Also make the movie darker, with scary death scenes and suspense.

Also something that you guys will hate me for saying, but, I don't want a flood of animatronics in this movie. No. CGI is here, people need to acept that. They have plenty of money to make a great CGI so there's no excuse.

As you guys can see, JP5 won't be my favorite movie. I won't get any of those above.

The herbivore threat aspect is interesting one. Bit sad it peaked 20 years ago:

JP: 1x (Gallimimus)
TLW: 4x (Stegosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Triceratops)
JP3: 1x (Parasaurolophus)
JW: 1x (Ankylosaurus)

To even be considered FOR one of my favorites, I'd actually like it to be a lot like the new Kong movie. That had good pacing, a fun soundtrack, and was all around a really fun adventure. It was atmospheric, had great cinematography and use of color, and not to mention really believable visual effects considering the content. Also, the creatures weren't really overshown. There was really only one moment where I felt that a creature was thrown in for the Hell of it. I want that kind of creature usage from JP5, not over done, but we DO get to see them, and not some slow, eventual, cliche monster reveal either. That was how the dinosaurs in JW were revealed. As Spielberg said when he was making TLW... we've SEEN the dinosaurs. We know they can be brought back to life. Now, SHOW us what you can DO with them.

Also, don't fall into the tired cliches of the franchise. We know Raptors are smart, now show us how they're brutal. We've seen rainstorms and vehicular destruction time and time again. We don't need to see another. I enjoyed that JW was bold enough to bring us something other than a rainstorm and a scene focussing on the main mode of transportation being ripped apart, but even JW couldn't shake off that latter one completely. I want JP5 to bring us back to nature's fury, to show us that we don't own this planet, we're just living on it for a while.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Also something that you guys will hate me for saying, but, I don't want a flood of animatronics in this movie. No. CGI is here, people need to acept that. They have plenty of money to make a great CGI so there's no excuse.

I can deal with most or even all of it being done in CGI but my main thing is that the CGI cannot look fake or out of place and in JW it was all over the place. At times I found myself saying, "wow this looks really good" and other times it was very questionable. Here's an example :

The raptor scene with Owen in general is the go to scene for very good CGI in JW. Especially this:

Spoiler:

If I didn't know that wasn't CGI I might suggest that it was an animatronic with the way CGI tends to look against a real background in modern films.

Then we have this:



From 4:08 to the time the rex walks off. All I can ask if what is that? Because it sure as hell isn't the JP rex ; looks more like it's a CGI barney. In fact, the CGI for the rex as a whole is not good. Point is, if they're going all CGI again (which is more likely as you pointed out) then they have to do a much better job at maintaining consistency.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Also something that you guys will hate me for saying, but, I don't want a flood of animatronics in this movie. No. CGI is here, people need to acept that. They have plenty of money to make a great CGI so there's no excuse.

You can have the best CGI possible, but everybody will complain that there's too much of it. A lot of people, critics, fans, and the GA (even people who like JW) have said that JW had too much CGI, and they're right. Star Wars 7 had quite a bit of practical effects and was praised for it. Even the maligned JP3 had a better mix of animatronics and CGI then JW. I hate JP3, but even I can see that it got that right. People want realism animatronics do just that. Even the best CGI can't totally the magic that animatronics can give. Enhance yes, take away, no.

Never mind the soft reboot angle and all the rest, but if you have a movie franchise that ****22-25 years later**** has
A) About as convincing to less convincing special effects
B) About as accurate to less accurate scientific basis
than the original, then you are seriously doing something wrong. Because those two areas have moved on with the world, but you have not been able to adapt to it. The science part can be somewhat excused with GA expectations and convenience excuses, but effects cannot. It's a travesty.

I think the Disney Star Wars films are pretty sterile fanservice galores all and all, but at least the effects (apart from few cartoon hiccups like the CGI Tarkin and vax-Leia) look really good and what you would expect as the result of natural technological advancements. Jurassic World looks like Gungan vs Droid Army battle with Midichlorian scientific basis.

I take it you didn't care for Rogue One?

CT-1138 wrote:

I take it you didn't care for Rogue One?

I rather not put it into words because I have previously received negative rating for stating my opinion of it

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Also something that you guys will hate me for saying, but, I don't want a flood of animatronics in this movie. No. CGI is here, people need to acept that. They have plenty of money to make a great CGI so there's no excuse.

You can have the best CGI possible, but everybody will complain that there's too much of it. A lot of people, critics, fans, and the GA (even people who like JW) have said that JW had too much CGI, and they're right. Star Wars 7 had quite a bit of practical effects and was praised for it. Even the maligned JP3 had a better mix of animatronics and CGI then JW. I hate JP3, but even I can see that it got that right. People want realism animatronics do just that. Even the best CGI can't totally the magic that animatronics can give. Enhance yes, take away, no.

Deeply disagree. People just hate CGI because they are nostalgic and can't admit that technologies change. CGI is the future of movies, there'll be more and more CGI, but people over hate it and IMO it's so stupid. Some people start hating the effects just because they heard it's CGI, then they already put in their minds that it's "artificial so this sucks". If you say all of the special effects is made by pratical stuff, people will love it and say it's amazing, I would love to troll some people with that, if I was a director. It would expose how people hate CGI just because it's CGI, not because the quality.

People think it's so easy to make CGI, just take a "green" background and add stuff, but it's not like that. It's artistic too like animatronics. It's hard to make. Not anyone can do it. I tried modeling and rendering a model on those plataforms like Unity and it was really a delicated process. And I deeply admire those who make great CGI that makes you wonder if that is really artificial or not. There are A LOT of CGI effects that are superior than animatronics. And IMO CGI making is just as magic as making an animatronic.

Try making a full body dinosaur action in animatronic, you can see for miles away that the moviments are too robotic. Meanwhile with a propper CGI, you can custom all the anatomy and movement of that dinosaur, and it'll be very natural.

Spinosaurus from JP3 is an example, that plane attack...You can see from miles away that it's an animatronic and "false", because it's too robotic.

I like animatronics but I'm not that "omg there must be more animatronics or it'll suck" person.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Also something that you guys will hate me for saying, but, I don't want a flood of animatronics in this movie. No. CGI is here, people need to acept that. They have plenty of money to make a great CGI so there's no excuse.

You can have the best CGI possible, but everybody will complain that there's too much of it. A lot of people, critics, fans, and the GA (even people who like JW) have said that JW had too much CGI, and they're right. Star Wars 7 had quite a bit of practical effects and was praised for it. Even the maligned JP3 had a better mix of animatronics and CGI then JW. I hate JP3, but even I can see that it got that right. People want realism animatronics do just that. Even the best CGI can't totally the magic that animatronics can give. Enhance yes, take away, no.

Deeply disagree. People just hate CGI because they are nostalgic and can't admit that technologies change. CGI is the future of movies, there'll be more and more CGI, but people over hate it and IMO it's so stupid. Some people start hating the effects just because they heard it's CGI, then they already put in their minds that it's "artificial so this sucks". If you say all of the special effects is made by pratical stuff, people will love it and say it's amazing, I would love to troll some people with that, if I was a director. It would expose how people hate CGI just because it's CGI, not because the quality.

People think it's so easy to make CGI, just take a "green" background and add stuff, but it's not like that. It's artistic too like animatronics. It's hard to make. Not anyone can do it. I tried modeling and rendering a model on those plataforms like Unity and it was really a delicated process. And I deeply admire those who make great CGI that makes you wonder if that is really artificial or not. There are A LOT of CGI effects that are superior than animatronics. And IMO CGI making is just as magic as making an animatronic.

Try making a full body dinosaur action in animatronic, you can see for miles away that the moviments are too robotic. Meanwhile with a propper CGI, you can custom all the anatomy and movement of that dinosaur, and it'll be very natural.

Spinosaurus from JP3 is an example, that plane attack...You can see from miles away that it's an animatronic and "false", because it's too robotic.

I like animatronics but I'm not that "omg there must be more animatronics or it'll suck" person.

I agree that there are some that are nostalgic, but when it get to the point where you use CGI for everything, you're just being really, really lazy. There's an rule that I forgot the name of, but it basically says that the more high tech a society becomes, the lazier it gets. And people have seen too much movies with CGI to tell with is real and which is CGI.
Not only that but you're forgetting something else. People love 'real'. The time, effort, practicality, those are the things that people admire because it shows the time that people went into making it. No amount of CGI will replace that. You can't just expect people to just embrace that. It's just human nature.

As for the Spinosaurus attacking the plane, I just see that as a symptom of just how little the producers cared about the movie.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Also something that you guys will hate me for saying, but, I don't want a flood of animatronics in this movie. No. CGI is here, people need to acept that. They have plenty of money to make a great CGI so there's no excuse.

You can have the best CGI possible, but everybody will complain that there's too much of it. A lot of people, critics, fans, and the GA (even people who like JW) have said that JW had too much CGI, and they're right. Star Wars 7 had quite a bit of practical effects and was praised for it. Even the maligned JP3 had a better mix of animatronics and CGI then JW. I hate JP3, but even I can see that it got that right. People want realism animatronics do just that. Even the best CGI can't totally the magic that animatronics can give. Enhance yes, take away, no.

Deeply disagree. People just hate CGI because they are nostalgic and can't admit that technologies change. CGI is the future of movies, there'll be more and more CGI, but people over hate it and IMO it's so stupid. Some people start hating the effects just because they heard it's CGI, then they already put in their minds that it's "artificial so this sucks". If you say all of the special effects is made by pratical stuff, people will love it and say it's amazing, I would love to troll some people with that, if I was a director. It would expose how people hate CGI just because it's CGI, not because the quality.

People think it's so easy to make CGI, just take a "green" background and add stuff, but it's not like that. It's artistic too like animatronics. It's hard to make. Not anyone can do it. I tried modeling and rendering a model on those plataforms like Unity and it was really a delicated process. And I deeply admire those who make great CGI that makes you wonder if that is really artificial or not. There are A LOT of CGI effects that are superior than animatronics. And IMO CGI making is just as magic as making an animatronic.

Try making a full body dinosaur action in animatronic, you can see for miles away that the moviments are too robotic. Meanwhile with a propper CGI, you can custom all the anatomy and movement of that dinosaur, and it'll be very natural.

Spinosaurus from JP3 is an example, that plane attack...You can see from miles away that it's an animatronic and "false", because it's too robotic.

I like animatronics but I'm not that "omg there must be more animatronics or it'll suck" person.

I agree that there are some that are nostalgic, but when it get to the point where you use CGI for everything, you're just being really, really lazy. There's an rule that I forgot the name of, but it basically says that the more high tech a society becomes, the lazier it gets. And people have seen too much movies with CGI to tell with is real and which is CGI.
Not only that but you're forgetting something else. People love 'real'. The time, effort, practicality, those are the things that people admire because it shows the time that people went into making it. No amount of CGI will replace that. You can't just expect people to just embrace that. It's just human nature.  

As for the Spinosaurus attacking the plane, I just see that as a symptom of just how little the producers cared about the movie.

I know we don't often see eye to eye but I fully agree with Rhedo here.

No-one's expecting CGI-free movie. If we were, we would be stupid. If we also hated CGI beyond belief, we would also have to hate Jurassic Park even with it's 4 minutes of usage because it was effectively the film that started the revolution. But what we are expecting is
A) It's only used when actually necessary
B) The quality of it should only not be great by itself, but it should also be able to stand for the test of time
C) Other methods are not thrown to the bin out of pure laziness
D) As the actual technology of CGI is still not omnipotent, animatronics usage can still arguably look better if used properly, so why kill it? I thought it was about making the best possible product?

In Jurassic World, they can't even have real life animals on screen anymore. No, even that god damn raven at the beginning of the film had to be CGI! Imagine if JP had been directed in modern day and Spielberg had done the same with the birds at the end when Grant's looking them out of the helicopter. Why rent a copter and catch the flight of some birds like you were doing Planet Earth, if you can just lazy out and CGI them in post production? Cozy and easy.

If you write "Jurassic Park CGI" to Google, what is the first thing that pops up below in other people's searches? "Jurassic Park CGI still holds up".

If you write "Jurassic World CGI" to Google, what is the first thing that pops ub below in other people's searches? "Jurassic World CGI too much". Followed by equally glamouring "Jurassic World all CGI", "Jurassic World terrible CGI", "Jurassic World poor CGI". People are not amazed by the effects. Good portion might be fine with them, I suppose, but not amazed. I guess Jack Anthony Ewins / Terrordome3000 is amazed, but he's amazed of everything

Now, while this article below may see clickbaity with it's header and list making, I also nod to everything here as well
https://www.rocketstock.com/blog/opinion-10-reasons-why-cgi-is-getting-worse-not-better/

I don't think putting CGI in everything is lazy. That's almost calling the makers lazy people, and I think CGI is nothing close to lazy. As I said, it's very hard to make it. There is a lot of dedication and effort in making something with CGI. If someone disagree, try making something "real" with CGI and render it. Just try. It's not for everyone. So if you admire the work on animatronics, you should admire the people that spent DAYS just to make a model in CGI...Do you call a game lazy, or the creators lazy, just bc the scenes are made with CGI? They are far from lazy, it requires a lot of talent to do that.

So that "people admire the dedication, something CGI will never top" is wrong. Totally wrong.


Animatronics aren't real. Just like CGI. There's no difference, just some people that get butthurt because CGI is replacing another technology.


People saw too much movies with animatronics too, they can guess what it is animatronic and what it isn't. Same way.


Accepting or not, technologies change, and people need to deal with it.


By the way, CGI Indominus rex looked amazing, 1000x better than that Apatosaurus animatronic.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

I don't think putting CGI in everything is lazy. That's almost calling the makers lazy people, and I think CGI is nothing close to lazy. As I said, it's very hard to make it. There is a lot of dedication and effort in making something with CGI. If someone disagree, try making something "real" with CGI and render it. Just try. It's not for everyone. So if you admire the work on animatronics, you should admire the people that spent DAYS just to make a model in CGI...Do you call a game lazy, or the creators lazy, just bc the scenes are made with CGI? They are far from lazy, it requires a lot of talent to do that.

So that "people admire the dedication, something CGI will never top" is wrong. Totally wrong.


Animatronics aren't real. Just like CGI. There's no difference, just some people that get butthurt because CGI is replacing another technology.


People saw too much movies with animatronics too, they can guess what it is animatronic and what it isn't. Same way.


Accepting or not, technologies change, and people need to deal with it.


By the way, CGI Indominus rex looked amazing, 1000x better than that Apatosaurus animatronic.

Partially agree, and partially disagree. You are 100% right that the teams who work behind CGI creations are just as important, passionate and hard working as the animatronic team. 

But at the same time...Technically an Animatronic is real. If you were there on set you could touch it. The INDY in JW looks and moves amazing. Moves better than any animatronic probably ever could. But I still dont think it looks as good as the T-Rex in JP in terms of realism. There is just an added layer of authenticity with the practical effects imo. 

My opinion is that either extreme is not ideal. I wouldn't want a JP film with 100% animatronics or 100% CGI, I feel they can both beautifully compliment each other used correctly (AKA Jurassic park  ).

I think the only thing that's lazy is bad animatronic work(JW Apatosaurus looks bad IMO) and bad CGI work. 

But I do admit I still have that old school bias. When CGI wasn't really a thing that was huge I still feel filmmakers had to take a "more is less" approach. I think it made the more creative. And I think that's were those feelings of "laziness" sometimes come from. 

I'm just kinda rambling at this point lol. Just my opinion

Troyal1 wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

I don't think putting CGI in everything is lazy. That's almost calling the makers lazy people, and I think CGI is nothing close to lazy. As I said, it's very hard to make it. There is a lot of dedication and effort in making something with CGI. If someone disagree, try making something "real" with CGI and render it. Just try. It's not for everyone. So if you admire the work on animatronics, you should admire the people that spent DAYS just to make a model in CGI...Do you call a game lazy, or the creators lazy, just bc the scenes are made with CGI? They are far from lazy, it requires a lot of talent to do that.

So that "people admire the dedication, something CGI will never top" is wrong. Totally wrong.


Animatronics aren't real. Just like CGI. There's no difference, just some people that get butthurt because CGI is replacing another technology.


People saw too much movies with animatronics too, they can guess what it is animatronic and what it isn't. Same way.


Accepting or not, technologies change, and people need to deal with it.


By the way, CGI Indominus rex looked amazing, 1000x better than that Apatosaurus animatronic.

Partially agree, and partially disagree. You are 100% right that the teams who work behind CGI creations are just as important, passionate and hard working as the animatronic team. 

But at the same time...Technically an Animatronic is real. If you were there on set you could touch it. The INDY in JW looks and moves amazing. Moves better than any animatronic probably ever could. But I still dont think it looks as good as the T-Rex in JP in terms of realism. There is just an added layer of authenticity with the practical effects imo. 

My opinion is that either extreme is not ideal. I wouldn't want a JP film with 100% animatronics or 100% CGI, I feel they can both beautifully compliment each other used correctly (AKA Jurassic park  ).

I think the only thing that's lazy is bad animatronic work(JW Apatosaurus looks bad IMO) and bad CGI work. 

But I do admit I still have that old school bias. When CGI wasn't really a thing that was huge I still feel filmmakers had to take a "more is less" approach. I think it made the more creative. And I think that's were those feelings of "laziness" sometimes come from. 

I'm just kinda rambling at this point lol. Just my opinion

^All of this

Not only that, but you're also the assumption that change is always good. Uh...no, it's not. As I said before, not only have people seen too much CGI in movies to tall apart which one is real and fake (at least in most cases). Not only that, but you're under the other assumption that getting CGI to look as good, if not better then animatronics can be done at a cost effective rate. I really doubt that it can. Other then Disney, I really doesn't think that most movie companies can afford to have that for most of their big budget movies. That and Hollywood as a whole has been so CGI heavy nowadays that it's not hard for people to misuse it. Take a look at how much the internet has made many of the human race dumber instead of making us smarter like many hoped for example.

CGI is a good change. It's been proven. You can do a lot of things with it. If it has quality, I wouldn't change it just bc I can't "touch" it.


Anyway, there'll be animatronics in this movie.

Looking back at my "requirements", and the leaked/probable premise, I would tentatively say it's on it's way to 5-6/10 trajectory, ala that JP3 ballpark I discussed earlier. Now obviously even if the premise were to stay 100% on that course (which I don't necessarily think it will) every detail and production value that actually is in the movie will swing that a bit to either direction. Still, I don't think TLW has to worry about losing #2nd place now...

6] With JP5, what rough $$$ estimation would you qualify as "box office success" for Universal?
US$ 1 billion. Of course, if it gross less than that, it wouldn't be a box office disaster, but a big disappointment. Actually, US$ 1 billion is already a disappointment, since it was Jurassic World foreign gross.

7] With JP5, what rough $$$ estimation would you qualify as "box office disaster" for Universal?
US$ 800 million, but that's almost impossible.

8] What qualities would it require from JP5 to become the best received JP sequel among general audiences and critics
It has to be original, bold and smart, not use the same old formulas.

9] What qualities would it require from JP5 to become the worst received JP sequel among general audiences and critics?
Dinosaurs chasing a bunch of people on an island.

10] Do you believe the scientific community will be pleased with JP5?
Never will.