Screenrant's 8 ideas for JURASSIC WORLD 4

[dragon53]

Screenrant's eight ideas for JURASSIC WORLD 4.


LINK: https://screenrant.com/jurassic-world-4-movie-story-ideas-fix-franchise/

[suspsy]

A full reboot is the best solution. Throw nostalgia into the trash completely and design the dinosaurs to reflect our present understanding. Make Tyrannosaurus rex big and beefy and lipped, and make it a proper powerhouse again. Replace Velociraptor with Deinonychus or Utahraptor. No more hybrids ever again. And no more animatronics. Make the animals entirely CGI like the animals in The Jungle Book and the creatures in Avatar.

[Gwangi]

Can we just leave the franchise alone? I don't like any of the ideas proposed by Screen Rant and I don't like the idea of remaking (or rebooting) the franchise either. I don't want a Jurassic Park remake anymore than I do a Jaws remake. Also, I wonder if the writer over at Screenrant even watched Dominion, since the Barbasol is addressed. Whatever, doesn't matter.

If the franchise must continue then I would like to see a series that follows a couple of Fish and Wildlife officers as they respond to various dinosaur-related incidents. Could be compies raiding trash cans one week, or an Allosaurus killing campers the next. Something like Primeval meets X-files.

Ideally I would like to see dinosaur media not tied to Jurassic Park. And there are plenty of old dinosaur movies that could be remade. Lets get a Valley of Gwangi remake but in a tone similar to Bone Tomahawk. That's something I would like to see!

[CityRaptor]

6. No More Hybrid Dinosaurs
5. Dinosaur Soldiers

Uh, yeah, so Hybrid Dinosaurs are silly, but they are fine with Dinosaur-Human-Hybrids?

[Faelrin]

Ew screen rant.  Not worth reading them.

I also don't want a remake or reboot, but especially one without animatronics which were part of the heart and soul of the original trilogy. Just bring back SWS. Never mind the original with its fantastic cast, director, script work, set builds, composer, etc. That was a shot in a million there. I don't have high hope a remake or reboot could hit in the same way the original did what with how most films are these days. Especially with how the World films turned out, including so much Marvel bottom of the barrel stuff thrown in them that didn't have the spirit of the original trilogy's tone (nevermind the over crocodilian design approach versus the smooth wrinkly skin of the original designs, which is more plausible based on the available dinosaur skin material, excepting those with osteoderms of course like Ceratosaurus and thyreophorans. They also gave things excessive teeth past the maxilla, like the raptors, a beakless tail dragging Stegosaurus, etc).

And between Dominion, previous World films, and the recent Netflix series, ILM need better consultants and actual paleoartists on board making design decisions (like Prehistoric Planet) before even thinking about doing a paleo accurate remake, reboot, whatever.

We also have that Camp Cretaceous sequel series coming out next year, and who knows how that will turn out after the last two seasons of the previous series.

Honestly what I'd really like is for the franchise to take a long hiatus. Give some breathing room for the fans, and also give time for new creatives to come on board with hopefully a better vision. Jurassic World felt significant after a decade with little dinosaur media in between, a fourth sequel stuck in development hell and numerous revisions, never mind the functioning park pre-hybrid escape. It's no wonder it made as much as it did. It's too bad it went downhill from there (and even though it still has its issues, like some of previous bad design approach, and tone, etc, I can still find some enjoyment in it).

The only exception to that would be games. Jurassic is in need of proper games outside the park building genre and mobile things. Lots of folks have wanted an Alien Isolation style game which has led to numerous indie attempts. What they gave us was a cartoony VR thing (eventually ported to Switch if not elsewhere), not at all what fans were asking for unfortunately.

[suspsy]

I'll happily say it again: animatronic dinosaurs are outdated, unconvincing, and unnecessary by contemporary standards. Even the ones by the late, great Stan Winston's company. Don't get me wrong, the work he and his team did on JP, Aliens, Terminator, and Predator was fabulous back in the 80s and 90s, but CGI has it completely beaten out in 2023. The fact that the JW trilogy had relatively poor CGI does not alter this fact. Nostalgia be damned.

Godzilla and King Kong are 100% CGI in this scene, and in all other scenes in the Legendary movie series. They easily beat out anything in JW, whether it's CGI or animatronic. This is what needs to be fully embraced for the future.

https://youtu.be/ZF1p_WQfa_Y?si=oIlx1zMI8jqU9gh7

[TheCambrianCrusader]

I'll happily say it again: animatronic dinosaurs are outdated, unconvincing, and unnecessary by contemporary standards. Even the ones by the late, great Stan Winston's company. Don't get me wrong, the work he and his team did on JP, Aliens, Terminator, and Predator was fabulous back in the 80s and 90s, but CGI has it completely beaten out in 2023. The fact that the JW trilogy had relatively poor CGI does not alter this fact. Nostalgia be damned.

Godzilla and King Kong are 100% CGI in this scene, and in all other scenes in the Legendary movie series. They easily beat out anything in JW, whether it's CGI or animatronic. This is what needs to be fully embraced for the future.

https://youtu.be/ZF1p_WQfa_Y?si=oIlx1zMI8jqU9gh7

Dunno if I agree with that tbh. JW's relatively shoddy effects aside, there are a lot of shots from the original trilogy that look astounding thanks to the animatronics like the trailer scene from TLW or the Triceratops scene from the original etc. Even beyond Jurassic Park the original reveal of the Alien Queen from Aliens looks leagues better than anything Alien has done in the near 40 years since. Practical effects still have a place

[TheCambrianCrusader]

All that being said I'd really rather they take a big break. The movies have been declining ever since TLW imo, and they've been milking the franchise dry. Honestly the only thing that would get me excited is like a Netflix show faithfully adapting the first two books. I think that would be neat and a breath of fresh air. (Preferably something 2d like the Castlevania show I really hate Camp Cretaceous' artstyle)

[Bread]

I'll happily say it again: animatronic dinosaurs are outdated, unconvincing, and unnecessary by contemporary standards. Even the ones by the late, great Stan Winston's company. Don't get me wrong, the work he and his team did on JP, Aliens, Terminator, and Predator was fabulous back in the 80s and 90s, but CGI has it completely beaten out in 2023.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here.

There's plenty of scenes in these classics you mentioned that the animatronics beat out the current CGI look. Of course the current CGI is heavily detailed, but the idea that the object that is CGI'd in is physically there, is gone.

[suspsy]

I'll happily say it again: animatronic dinosaurs are outdated, unconvincing, and unnecessary by contemporary standards. Even the ones by the late, great Stan Winston's company. Don't get me wrong, the work he and his team did on JP, Aliens, Terminator, and Predator was fabulous back in the 80s and 90s, but CGI has it completely beaten out in 2023. The fact that the JW trilogy had relatively poor CGI does not alter this fact. Nostalgia be damned.

Godzilla and King Kong are 100% CGI in this scene, and in all other scenes in the Legendary movie series. They easily beat out anything in JW, whether it's CGI or animatronic. This is what needs to be fully embraced for the future.

https://youtu.be/ZF1p_WQfa_Y?si=oIlx1zMI8jqU9gh7

Dunno if I agree with that tbh. JW's relatively shoddy effects aside, there are a lot of shots from the original trilogy that look astounding thanks to the animatronics like the trailer scene from TLW or the Triceratops scene from the original etc. Even beyond Jurassic Park the original reveal of the Alien Queen from Aliens looks leagues better than anything Alien has done in the near 40 years since. Practical effects still have a place

None of those scenes you listed surpass anything from Godzilla, or from Avatar or the remade Planet of the Apes trilogy or the Hobbit trilogy. The trailer scene from TLW would have work just as well with contemporary CGI and I honestly always felt that the Triceratops looked pretty fake, especially the way it kept raising its left forelimb in the exact same manner.

You could never, ever pull off that same scene between Godzilla and Kong using animatronics instead of CGI and have it be as fluid and convincing. I think the people who insist that animatronics are still preferable are overly influenced by nostalgia.

[Faelrin]

Yeah I definitely can't agree with that. Even if CGI modeling, lighting, etc has improved substantially, animation is also critical. The recent JW movies have poorly animated animals, like the largest herbivores galloping with no real sense of weight or understanding how their anatomy functions (extant mammals, that they claimed to have referenced from, are not good analogues for ornithischian and sauropod dinosaurs). Animatronics also do one thing that CGI can't do, and that's give the actors something tangible to work with. This is a big reason why there was a decision to make Grogu in the Mandalorian series a practical puppet. Both the actors and fans ultimately loved it, and it turned out for the better. Compare the reception of the fully CGI Yoda in the prequel films compared to the puppet used in the original films as well. For something like Prehistoric Planet it can be completely fine, but I'd argue in the case where there is a human cast present, having interactions with that practical tangible thing that be seen and touched make a more prominent impact. It also goes a long way for getting setting proper lighting as well, since it's physically present.

There is a reason why certain films with animatronics and other practical effects (that were done well) were very convincing, and still hold up to this day (even though practical effects have also gotten better in time), and that includes Jurassic Park, Alien, Predator, Terminator, American Werewolf in London, and many others. I also feel it's also incredibly disrespectful to an entire industry out there to say they are no longer needed because CGI has gotten better. Even now there are still plenty of young people interested in learning and creating practical effects (some of which include animatronics).

Edit: I was distracted by needing to help my father with something, but I also wanted to add that the new Five Nights at Freddy's movie is an example of doing practical effects right, and had they been fully CGI they wouldn't have helped sell the idea as well (especially considering the nature of the characters are fully intended to be animatronics in the first place).

[Eatmycar]

I'll happily say it again: animatronic dinosaurs are outdated, unconvincing, and unnecessary by contemporary standards. Even the ones by the late, great Stan Winston's company. Don't get me wrong, the work he and his team did on JP, Aliens, Terminator, and Predator was fabulous back in the 80s and 90s, but CGI has it completely beaten out in 2023. The fact that the JW trilogy had relatively poor CGI does not alter this fact. Nostalgia be damned.

Godzilla and King Kong are 100% CGI in this scene, and in all other scenes in the Legendary movie series. They easily beat out anything in JW, whether it's CGI or animatronic. This is what needs to be fully embraced for the future.

https://youtu.be/ZF1p_WQfa_Y?si=oIlx1zMI8jqU9gh7

I'll happily raise a glass to this and second it.

Jurassic Park was the peak of animatronic performance for the time, but come on. Fans and the production team held on to ILM for nostalgia's sake and ILM did a horrible job for the past three movies on animal designs. The animatronics were brought in for nostalgia and only grew in volume over the course of the new trilogy.

Aside from the writing getting worse, the animatronics only grew worse and worse with each film. Stan Winston's team achieved magic in the early 1990s, but the puppeteers and the art itself are just not of that calibre anymore. Look at the sad gremlin Microceratus in Dominion and tell me we need animatronics. It's a complete joke.

Go practical for set construction and vehicles, but the puppet dinosaurs are due to die off at this point.

[suspsy]

For movies like Avatar or Godzilla or Planet of the Apes or the Hobbit or any future Jurassic World movie, yes, I do indeed believe that animatronics are no longer necessary. It's not a matter of disrespect, it's just plain brutal honesty. Smaug and Godzilla and Rocket Raccoon just would not have worked right as animatronics. Caesar and Gollum and Thanos definitely would not have looked right if it had just been Andy Serkis and Josh Brolin wearing a ton of prosthetics. And then there's Payakan and the toruk and the ikran that frankly would have come off like beasts on a theme park ride at best if they have been animatronic. And yes, the CGI in JW was totally bad, but that's the shortcoming of the animators, not the technology itself. Those other examples I listed above speak for themselves. You could absolutely have a new Jurassic Park movie with only CGI animals and it would work. 

[Bread]

None of those scenes you listed surpass anything from Godzilla, or from Avatar or the remade Planet of the Apes trilogy or the Hobbit trilogy.

I am surprised you mentioned Hobbit trilogy when those movies were heavily criticized for too much use of CGI, when their predecessor trilogy used a mix of everything.

I will say I agree that out of all of those mentioned, Avatar's CGI is at the top in terms of appearances. It definitely can or even should be considered at the number one spot. Then again, that's James Cameron for you...

You could never, ever pull off that same scene between Godzilla and Kong using animatronics instead of CGI and have it be as fluid and convincing. I think the people who insist that animatronics are still preferable are overly influenced by nostalgia.

I actually 100% agree regarding the Godzilla and Kong statement. But then again those are creatures who are way too large for actual physical animatronics. The only way to ever consider and use animatronics for something like that is for closeups. Which leads to a great compare and contrast my animation and film classes used.

Closeups and sometimes physical interactions involving touch or the desire to display realism or the presence of physical objects should use animatronics, meanwhile distant shots or action should mainly involve CGI.

This is where I disagree with you regarding nostalgia. Believe it or not, I just watched Aliens (the sequel, not to be confused with all of the movies) and I can absolutely tell the difference and preference for CGI vs. Animatronics. Meanwhile I had watched Aliens vs Predators, while there is a queen present in both of these movies, I can tell the difference and feel it too when there is an actual physical object present.

[TheCambrianCrusader]

For movies like Avatar or Godzilla or Planet of the Apes or the Hobbit or any future Jurassic World movie, yes, I do indeed believe that animatronics are no longer necessary. It's not a matter of disrespect, it's just plain brutal honesty. Smaug and Godzilla just would not have worked right as animatronics. Caesar and Gollum definitely would not have looked right if it had just been Andy Serkis wearing a ton of prosthetics. And then there's Payakan and the toruk and the ikran that frankly would have come off like beasts on a theme park ride at best if they have been animatronic. And yes, the CGI in JW was totally bad, but that's the shortcoming of the animators, not the technology itself. Those other examples I listed above speak for themselves. You could absolutely have a new Jurassic Park movie with only CGI animals and it would work. 

Personally I always found the avatar movies to be very plasticy. Now obviously animatronics are limited in what they can do. You really can't get dynamic movements from them otherwise they look really awkward (prob why the animatronic scenes from the rex v spino fight got cut). So yeah in most cases you need cgi but depending on the direction an animatronic can look almost lifelike. Again I'll bring up the TLW trailer scene, having those massive physical objects lower down just into view from the windows just elicits a very raw reaction from me and definitely the actors. I keep trying to imagine the scene with vfx on par with prehistoric planet or say the monster verse movies and I just don't think it would have worked as well.

I think you're also selling the LoTR movies a little short. Yeah maybe Gollum wouldn't have worked with makeup, but the orc makeup just looks so amazing.

I do agree that the monster verse as a whole had some pretty darn good vfx (kotm was kinda hit and miss depending on the scene) and I have a hard time imagining how they would even implement practical effects in a modern Kaiju movie but I gotta bring up Gamera 3 in that regard. Obv the monster verse movies look a lot more convincing than the situation but there are a few scenes that just land so we'll and wouldn't have the same the impact if it was made today. The final battle with Irys in that building for example or a lot of the closeup shots in the Shibuya scene go a long way in showing that if used properly practical effects can be show stopping.

Also obligatory Thing 1982 acknowledgement. Practical effects are neat lol

[Gwangi]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, all or nothing. Practical effects are great, when they're practical. Obviously a battle on the scale of those in the Monsterverse or Marvel movies need CGI. Jurassic Park works because it uses both, so does Lord of the Rings. And honestly, the practical effects hold up better than the CGI in Jurassic Park. But of course they do, I hear you say, because the film is 30 years old. But to that I say that generally speaking, practical looks more convincing in the long run than CGI. The practical effects in Jurassic Park, Aliens, Gremlins, American Werewolf, The Thing (compare it to the prequal with CGI), The Fly, The Shape of Water (need I go on) still hold up and always will. Consider CGI movies though. I remember being blown away by the CGI in Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005). It doesn't hold up anymore, it looks like crap, meanwhile I can still watch the 1933 King Kong and at the very least appreciate the craft that went into it. Same with something like Clash of the Titans, I have no desire to watch the CGI remake. And honestly, I don't think the CGI in large portions of Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit hold up. It's like video game graphics. Anyone remember when the original Tomb Raider and Goldeneye looked good? A generation later and all those great effects aren't so great anymore.

I like practical effects because they're real. Even when they're off, they're still a thing that exists and was made with human hands. The shark in Jaws never looked great to me, but the fact that they built that shark life size and filmed it in the ocean (despite the hardship of it) makes me appreciate it far more than the better looking sharks in The Shallows or Meg. Practical effects can be a little rough, it makes them endearing.

Now all that being said, I agree with Suspsy on a lot of points and think a legitimately good dinosaur movie could be made completely with CGI. I did not miss practical effects when I watched Prehistoric Planet because the CGI was exemplary. And there is no denying that the apes in the newer Planet of the Apes blow any practical ape effects out of the water (although I have a lot of love for Harry from Harry and the Hendersons). But I do think that truly good CGI movies are rare. Something like Avatar has James Cameron behind it, pushing the technology in the same way he pushed practical effects technology in the 80's and 90's, but not every movie does. It's just that 90% of movies that rely on CGI don't try hard enough or don't have the budget to do what they really want and unless it does it just ends up looking like a video game.

[Faelrin]

Another thing I forgot to touch on earlier is that wanting animatronics (and other practical effects) is not wholly because of nostalgia for me (if not others). Jurassic Park? Maybe in some aspect because I was a toddler who watched it shortly after it released on VHS, but it is so much more then that for me, and to assume that's the only reason (or a primary) one may desire them is a rather reductionist way of looking at it.

I can't say that I have nostalgia for certain films like Alien (etc), John Carpenter's The Thing, or even American Werewolf in London as I seen all of these films long after I was an adult. Perhaps Alien and its sequels aside which I knew a little bit about from reading up on them as a teen, I went in blind watching the others, and their effects work blew my mind. Granted all of those are horror films, and genre does have its relevance when choosing either practical, CGI, or both.

It's also because I legitimately have an interest in practical effects work, and have since I was a child watching the various behind the scenes things included on DVD extras for movies. And don't get me wrong, I do like good CGI as well. I was born just at the right time to watch it truly grow from early usage in Jurassic Park, Toy Story, etc, into things like the Lord of the Rings films, Jackson's King Kong, and how prevalent it is today (which is not always for the better, as using something too much diminishes the value of how impactful it can be when used right. This is something like early films like Jurassic Park did, in part due to the constraints of the time, despite that the CGI has aged, while the practical effects work still hold up).

I think both @Gwangi and @Bread made some really good points. Both can be used for the better (like Avatar, the recent Godzilla films, or the numerous classic films SWS worked on) or worse (like in JW: Dominion). Practical effects, much like CGI have also come a long way as the technology gets better, and techniques get more refined from experience and experimentation. I'm almost certain Rick Baker who worked on AWIL mentioned something along the lines that the effect work could have been done much better, as he did it when he was much younger and inexperienced. Some recent films that have also used a good mix of them include 2013's Pacific Rim, 2015 Mad Max: Fury Road, and this year's Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, or again the Five Nights at Freddy's movie, and the many recent Star Wars things. Probably plenty of other examples, but these are the ones that came to my mind, and ones I've enjoyed in recent years. Also speaking of Avatar, even it had a mix of practical effects and CGI as well (though most of it CGI). A lot of the design work is owed to using practical maquettes and other things. SWS studios has a write up (part one, part two) of the design process and history. @Gwangi also makes a good point about Cameron's involvement ultimately helping as well (which the articles touch upon).

[Gwangi]

Thanks for bringing up the nostalgia aspect @Faelrin , and good examples of modern practical effects. Nostalgia doesn't have much to do with it for me either. I'm just interested in practical effects as a artform. CGI is an artform too but the movie magic used with practical effects is far more impressive. But not everyone is interested in movie production, most people just want to watch movies, be entertained, escape from reality and be convinced that what they're seeing is real. There's nothing wrong with that either.

There are certainly some great examples of modern practical effects that show the artform is not dead. Mad God, The Walking Dead, The Shape of Water, a slew of stop-motion animated projects (Coraline, Paranorman, Kubo and the Two Strings), Top Gun: Maverick, and of course...Mad Max: Fury Road. The most recent Predator sequel, Prey, used practical effects for the predator and it looked fantastic, the CGI animals on the other hand...

EDIT: I still haven't seen a werewolf movie with CGI superior to the practical effects of An American Werewolf In London. Not saying it can't be done, but it hasn't. Every CGI werewolf transformation I've seen has been trash. It's easy to cherry pick examples of good and bad practical effects and CGI though, which is why I ultimately stand by my statement that there's room for both and they often compliment each other. 

[Takama]

Going into this thread without watching that crappy channels video made me bring up two ideas.

Either

Do a live Action treatment of some Adventure with the Kids from CC.

Or

End the Damn movie franchise,  but knowing hollywood, if it makes kuku $$$$$ they will crap out another sequil.

Also one thing i like to note is that i doubt we will ever see accurate designs in these films again.  Or at least on purpose. If Hollywood really cared that much about the science of the prehistoric life they put in there movies (no matter the setting)  then the film 65 should never have of been called 65.

My 2 cents for now

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I don't know why we need another movie.  A TV series where they investigate, track and recapture prehistoric creatures would be great and solve a lot of issues.