65 Movie

[Newt]

The same goes for Harryhausen's mythological creatures in such films as Jason and the Argonauts or Clash of the Titans, which often deviate strongly from the way they were depicted in ancient art. But Harryhausen was making deliberate decisions which he presumably felt enhanced the film's visual impact. From the looks of this trailer, the designers working on 65 were doing the opposite, making bad movie dinosaurs based on other bad movie dinosaurs because they couldn't be bothered with either accuracy or originality. 

Inaccuracy is much more forgivable when it's interesting; these designs are both inaccurate and deadly dull. Also, the original Planet of the Apes used the "It was Earth all along" trope so effectively that all other science fiction films should be barred from using it unless they can make a really good case that they deserve to.

The prehistoric setting just seems entirely superfluous; if the ship actually had landed on an alien world populated with alien predators, would that change the story or feeling of the film in any significant way? Maybe there's more to the plot than the trailer lets on, but the whole film looks to me like a blatant attempt to cash in on JW's success. Easy pass for me.

[Crackington]

@Newt - I'm glad you mentioned the Planet of the Apes trope - the 65 trailer really reminded me too of it and not in a good way.

@Gwangi - Fair points, but I must say that Spielberg (and Crichton) took similar liberties with JP. For instance:

-  human size Velociraptors because they preferred the name to Deinonychus
- venom spitting Dilophosaurus
- Tyrannosaurs which can only see animals in motion
- a paleobotanist being able to tell which modern plants would be poisonous to Triceratops

Not much accuracy there, is there? Both film makers are guilty of putting spectacle before hard science and did it really well 

My point is that Harryhausen's films are the equivalent to JP of the 1960s, and they were accurate (or at least relatively so for the time).

By the way, I can think of two more films from an earlier era which also had accurate(ish) dinosaurs for their time - The Lost World (1925) and King Kong (1933). I think I'd rather watch all of them before 65, but if it comes on Netflix....

[Gwangi]

Fair points, but I must say that Spielberg (and Crichton) took similar liberties with JP. For instance:

-  human size Velociraptors because they preferred the name to Deinonychus
- venom spitting Dilophosaurus
- Tyrannosaurs which can only see animals in motion
- a paleobotanist being able to tell which modern plants would be poisonous to Triceratops

Not much accuracy there, is there? Both film makers are guilty of putting spectacle before hard science and did it really well 

My point is that Harryhausen's films are the equivalent to JP of the 1960s, and they were accurate (or at least relatively so for the time).

By the way, I can think of two more films from an earlier era which also had accurate(ish) dinosaurs for their time - The Lost World (1925) and King Kong (1933). I think I'd rather watch all of them before 65, but if it comes on Netflix....

I'm aware of all of Jurassic Park's inaccuracies, I have been since the 1990's when I absorbed every documentary or magazine publication that pointed the inaccuracies out. I'm not trying to give Spielberg a pass or put him on a pedestal over Harryhausen. They're both movie makers, not paleontologists. And you might be right that the dinosaurs were accurate for their time in each instance but the difference is that Jurassic Park was the first movie to update their dinosaurs for a post-renaissance world. It had an eye towards accuracy and a point to make. Jurassic Park was striving for something whereas prior movies were just following the status quo and making dinosaurs look how they were assumed to have look since their discovery. I'll say the same for The Lost World and King Kong. I think that early in the dinosaur movie game you had no choice but to follow the science. They were "accurate" by default. T. rex was only described 28 years before the release of the original King Kong. Dinosaurs were so new in concept that you had little choice but to follow what little science there was. I will also say that Jurassic Park was an actual science fiction movie whereas those by Harryhausen were all pure fantasy, not even in the same genre aside from having dinosaurs.

And I agree, I would happily watch any of the movies we've talked about instead of 65. I do watch them all, often, and I love them all. I'm not trying to throw shade here. My handle wouldn't be Gwangi if I didn't love those movies and respect their creator. And I'll take a stop motion, tail dragging dinosaur over bad CGI garbage any day.

[bmathison1972]

Science-fiction movies with dinosaurs are not intended to be nature documentaries. Anyone looking for scientific accuracy or who will analyze them based on scientific accuracy should expect a long exercise in futility...     

Everyone goes to dinosaur sci-fi movies for one thing and one thing only, to watch dinosaurs eat people!   

[Faelrin]

I'm in a strange position as I'm a dinosaur fan before being a JP fan, but I pretty much got introduced to dinosaurs through Jurassic Park (and Land Before Time), if not toys my father got me when I was really young. So the two have been pretty intertwined interests for most of my life. I suppose having a fascination with the natural world and extant fauna and flora at a young age helped me be pretty open and accepting to the prehistoric animals being (vastly) different to the JP designs. I don't think the original JP designs were really all that bad for the time. There was some semblance of research and consultation done (before science moved on), despite some intentional artistic liberties taken with the designs (notably the Dilophosaurus, and oversized Deinonychus called the wrong name), but they could get away with it through their setting.

Now that I'm even more aware of the current evidence for these animals, it really bums me out when there isn't at least an attempt being made to research, or bring on a paleontologist consultant or two, paleoartists, etc in this day and age. Instead the designs are just uninspired copies of what came before. And despite how much I disliked the film that was Jurassic World Dominion, I will at least give them credit for attempting with some of their designs, like the Moros, Pyroraptor, Quetzalcoatlus, and Therizinosaurus, and generally treating them like animals throughout it.

No, they weren't that bad for their time. In fact, they were revolutionary. No film had ever even remotely tried to accurately depict dinosaurs on screen before Jurassic Park. I was 9 when Jurassic Park came out and I remember well the hype among scientific circles. Jurassic Park was going all in on the dinosaur renaissance. The last big dinosaur movie before JP was The Land Before Time. It came out only 5 years earlier and even that film has dinosaur designs and behaviors largely stuck in the 1950's.

A bit late of a response, but yeah I think I was probably underselling it huh? Honestly I think that I occasionally forget that, even though I've heard that over and over, as I was born in '91, and Jurassic Park was the first time I've seen live action dinosaurs. As I got older, anything like the Land Before Time, etc, all had this dated look to them because of the tail dragging etc. That isn't to say I didn't enjoy those older films. My father got me hooked on Gwangi when I was a kid, after being obsessed with Allosaurus after watching the WWD Ballad of Big Al. Even now I occasionally rewatch them with my father.

Honestly I think I would have preferred them going to an alien planet in this film, but with creatures that convergently evolved to be similar to dinosaurs, and other prehistoric animals. (Edit: Um yeah kind of forgot, but Avatar kind of did this. The sequel for example, clearly has a plesiosaur inspired animal). I think it would have given them a lot more room to be more creative, or with the lack there of, it wouldn't be so disappointing for those that care about the real animals, that they claim to use, but not an ounce of care was put into. I still don't like these bottom of the barrel copy pasted designs but I'd be a lot more forgiving. Likewise as a different example of sorts, although I'm not the biggest fan of some of Ark: Survival Evolved's designs, but I'm also a bit more forgiving and tolerant with the setting (distant future, gene spliced, etc). Though some of them are also decent like the Moschops and Yutyrannus (albeit oversized), etc.

Another issue, minor perhaps, but kind of tired of the same old Tyrannosaurus and oversized outdated Deinonychus that plague other dinosaur media as well. It's absolutely a shame the only two with some variety on the scene have been the Jurassic franchise, or documentaries. Maybe Ark as well, because at least they have quite a bit spanning from the Paleozoic to the Pleistocene.

[dinofelid]

If frill Dilo wasnt in JP then it would be considered light spec in internet paleo circles

Real frilled-neck lizards have bones in their frills though, and that might be a necessity to quickly raise the frill for display especially in an animal as large as Dilophosaurus. You could always speculate that it had those bones too but they weren't preserved in any of the existing fossils, but it seems less plausible than speculations that just involve non-bony tissue like air sacs or wattles or fatty humps. As for spitting venom, as mentioned here that involves specialized teeth in living species that do it.

[Gwangi]

I'm in a strange position as I'm a dinosaur fan before being a JP fan, but I pretty much got introduced to dinosaurs through Jurassic Park (and Land Before Time), if not toys my father got me when I was really young. So the two have been pretty intertwined interests for most of my life. I suppose having a fascination with the natural world and extant fauna and flora at a young age helped me be pretty open and accepting to the prehistoric animals being (vastly) different to the JP designs. I don't think the original JP designs were really all that bad for the time. There was some semblance of research and consultation done (before science moved on), despite some intentional artistic liberties taken with the designs (notably the Dilophosaurus, and oversized Deinonychus called the wrong name), but they could get away with it through their setting.

Now that I'm even more aware of the current evidence for these animals, it really bums me out when there isn't at least an attempt being made to research, or bring on a paleontologist consultant or two, paleoartists, etc in this day and age. Instead the designs are just uninspired copies of what came before. And despite how much I disliked the film that was Jurassic World Dominion, I will at least give them credit for attempting with some of their designs, like the Moros, Pyroraptor, Quetzalcoatlus, and Therizinosaurus, and generally treating them like animals throughout it.

No, they weren't that bad for their time. In fact, they were revolutionary. No film had ever even remotely tried to accurately depict dinosaurs on screen before Jurassic Park. I was 9 when Jurassic Park came out and I remember well the hype among scientific circles. Jurassic Park was going all in on the dinosaur renaissance. The last big dinosaur movie before JP was The Land Before Time. It came out only 5 years earlier and even that film has dinosaur designs and behaviors largely stuck in the 1950's.

A bit late of a response, but yeah I think I was probably underselling it huh? Honestly I think that I occasionally forget that, even though I've heard that over and over, as I was born in '91, and Jurassic Park was the first time I've seen live action dinosaurs. As I got older, anything like the Land Before Time, etc, all had this dated look to them because of the tail dragging etc. That isn't to say I didn't enjoy those older films. My father got me hooked on Gwangi when I was a kid, after being obsessed with Allosaurus after watching the WWD Ballad of Big Al. Even now I occasionally rewatch them with my father.

Honestly I think I would have preferred them going to an alien planet in this film, but with creatures that convergently evolved to be similar to dinosaurs, and other prehistoric animals. I think it would have given them a lot more room to be more creative, or with the lack there of, it wouldn't be so disappointing for those that care about the real animals, that they claim to use, but not an ounce of care was put into. I still don't like these bottom of the barrel copy pasted designs but I'd be a lot more forgiving. Likewise as a different example of sorts, although I'm not the biggest fan of some of Ark: Survival Evolved's designs, but I'm also a bit more forgiving and tolerant with the setting (distant future, gene spliced, etc). Though some of them are also decent like the Moschops and Yutyrannus (albeit oversized), etc.

Another issue, minor perhaps, but kind of tired of the same old Tyrannosaurus and oversized outdated Deinonychus that plague other dinosaur media as well. It's absolutely a shame the only two with some variety on the scene have been the Jurassic franchise, or documentaries. Maybe Ark as well, because at least they have quite a bit spanning from the Paleozoic to the Pleistocene.

The curse of Jurassic Park is that it did so well that pop culture doesn't want to move past it despite the fact that the movie was trying to move us forward. And there is now a large portion of the JP fanbase stuck on these outdated dinosaur designs without seemingly realizing that making their dinosaurs "accurate" is a big part of what made the original movie so special. I think younger fans (I'm talking younger than you or me) of the franchise fail to appreciate the impact that the original Jurassic Park had on the perception of dinosaurs. For those of us old enough to remember, dinosaur media can be clearly divided into "before Jurassic Park" and "after Jurassic Park".

[Crackington]

This is a good point @Gwangi, JP did change things and was revolutionary in its depictions of dinosaurs, no doubt.

It also introduced a whole new plot line to films and fiction, using genetics as a way of bringing humans and dinosaurs together.

This was hitherto only been achievable through either:
- a lost world theme (originating in the proto sci fi of Jules Verne, then pushed by Arthur Conan Doyle, Burroughs etc and later spawning King Kong, Gwangi and others); or
- variations on time travel, with humans visiting the past (perhaps done best in Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder story), but more often bringing dinosaurs out of the past (Dr Who and the Dinosaur Invasion) or waking beasts frozen in time (Dinosaurus, Beast from 20,000 Fathoms and even Godzilla).*

The genius of Michael Crichton was to develop a new way for dinosaurs and humans to meet. Uniting that with the dinosaur renaissance and Spielberg's superlative film making skills was a powerful combination. It's such a shame that the Jurassic World people later dropped the baton and failed to keep up with the science.

*65 looks like it's humans returning to the past, unless there's a plot twist we don't expect. This might actually be a good move for them as I can't think of too many films where this happens, it's usually dinos coming the other way. Films set in the past usually either have anthropomorphic dino protagonists (The Land before Time, WWD movie) or just ignore the science and lump cave men in anyway (er One Million Years BC)!

[Faelrin]

@Gwangi Yeah I've seen quite a number of fans (not just JP and/or JW, but casual dinosaur fans) get offended, or hostile, when someone asks for more accurate depictions, or criticizes the existing ones, using either the "it's a movie, not a documentary" excuse, and numerous others (some JP/JW specific), forgetting (or too young and yet to learn) that JP was a standard setter, that's also now behind the times by at least 3 decades. I really hope Prehistoric Planet was the step in the direction we've long needed, if not things to come (that hopefully aren't solely tied to a streaming service). I also have a haunch that it is probably the same type of people that seem to absolutely hate feathered maniraptorans with a passion, which are always quick to compare them to chickens (edit: which their behavior for smaller theropods isn't a bad analogy, but they're always used disingenuously), as if other birds, including hawks and eagles don't exist, and other similar nonsense. These people mistakenly think that these very real (even if long gone and extinct) animals solely existed to fuel some narrative or head canon of theirs, where their only value is their need to be terrifying monsters. There's far better alternatives to suit that desire that doesn't involve animals that were real. Or perhaps they are stuck living in the past, and can't learn to move on.

In fact, I've already seen folks try to defend this film's poor designs with the same sort of excuses. Honestly I'm quite tired of people giving studios a pass because of their ignorance on the topic at hand, and also the lack of effort to do any research, from either party, or those other issues I've mentioned above. It's not only dinosaurs that get this treatment either, but they might be the easiest to mess up, at least anatomically. I've definitely seen it happen with films featuring extant animals, or history, but there is at least more people with awareness about the issues that go out of their way to point them out.

[dragon53]

New article on 65.


LINK: https://screenrant.com/65-movie-success-jurassic-park-dinosaur-trend/

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Wow they went right back to Carnosaur in the 90s..didn't even mention the slew of Scifi/Syfy channel films or any other prehistoric knockoff film.

I don't see this being the new "apex predator" of dinosaur films. It doesn't have the buzz, marketing,not even a toy or collectible line for it yet. No one is taking bets this will be a big hit. It's a March release too..not summer blockbuster. That's not to say it won't be a good film or worth watching just not what the article writer is aiming at. 

[Carnoking]

Here's a question that just occurred to me. Will this film have a toy tie-in line? Might be fun to see some other company challenging the rule of Mattel's dinos on retail shelves.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Here's a question that just occurred to me. Will this film have a toy tie-in line? Might be fun to see some other company challenging the rule of Mattel's dinos on retail shelves.

I haven't heard anything, it's not geared toward kids as far as I can tell, so probably no toys really. If it does well maybe a collectible or two?

[Takama]

Skip to 13:21 of this video to see the portion on this movie, it reveals some surprising stuff about it

[Gwangi]

Thanks for sharing that @Takama. Any shred of optimism I may have had for this movie just went out the window. Movies plagued by production issues and re-shoots seldom result in a quality film. And if you're cutting dinosaurs like Triceratops and Ankylosaurus from your movie because they're "boring" then that pretty much assures that your DINOSAUR movie is going to be crap.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

Skip to 13:21 of this video to see the portion on this movie, it reveals some surprising stuff about it

Oh thanks. Lel. Sounds even worse than i initially thought tbh. Sounds even worse than the JW Movies to me. I was hoping for some kind of a "its 65M because they landed straight within a dying world." But this would be too much i guess. Sounds and look horrible. I say that as a Fan of prehistoric Worlds and Animals. But. We will see in the End, when it is finished. Maybe

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The three legged ankylosaurus immediately had my attention as a character. That's a shame it was cut.

[Crackington]

"Development hell", doesn't sound very promising and the release date keeps getting put back. Who knows, maybe it will eventually be released in '65?

[Carnoking]

Here's a question that just occurred to me. Will this film have a toy tie-in line? Might be fun to see some other company challenging the rule of Mattel's dinos on retail shelves.

I haven't heard anything, it's not geared toward kids as far as I can tell, so probably no toys really. If it does well maybe a collectible or two?

I'll agree that the trailer suggests something a lot darker than what we've seen from the likes of Jurassic but it doesn't feel too far removed from something like Peter Jackson's King Kong, which had plenty of toys released alongside the film.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Here's a question that just occurred to me. Will this film have a toy tie-in line? Might be fun to see some other company challenging the rule of Mattel's dinos on retail shelves.

I haven't heard anything, it's not geared toward kids as far as I can tell, so probably no toys really. If it does well maybe a collectible or two?

I'll agree that the trailer suggests something a lot darker than what we've seen from the likes of Jurassic but it doesn't feel too far removed from something like Peter Jackson's King Kong, which had plenty of toys released alongside the film.

Kong had a fun kid friendly side this doesn't look to have ice skating dinosaurs.. lol I just wouldn't count on it, but with no more toy fair it's hard to tell.