Jurassic Park 4 [Jurassic World] (no spoilers)

[Manatee]

In the scene at 0:17, it appears the raptors' hands are no longer pronated.
I. rex appears to have confirmed that this is now a monster movie. Still, I like monster movies.

Check out the one on the left

I noticed that as well. Either a continuity issue, or they have it where their hands can either be accurate or pronated, which would irk me.

[alexeratops]

All of the dinosaurs look based on reconstructions from the late 80´s or early 90´s pre-Jurassic Park era. Look at those horrible Stegosaurus and Triceratops running....

Oh, come on, it's Jurassic Park! You can't expect accuracy. If you're going to judge, judge the storyline, the mistakes, the bad acting, not the nostalgic dinosaurs for the fourth movie of a series that started in 1993!

[SBell]

In the scene at 0:17, it appears the raptors' hands are no longer pronated.
I. rex appears to have confirmed that this is now a monster movie. Still, I like monster movies.

Check out the one on the left

I noticed that as well. Either a continuity issue, or they have it where their hands can either be accurate or pronated, which would irk me.

As we've seen in JP movies, the 'raptors are incredibly smart. They probably learned how do that. From their people.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

http://www.jurassicworld.com/tickets/john-hammond/

scroll down to the first review.

[Arul]

Love that raptor, the prehistoric hound dog 

[DinoLord]

The level of detail in some of those reviews is great. 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The level of detail in some of those reviews is great. 

Well the one gives us a reason for no feathers..at least sort of.

[Saurian]

scene where the animals run - poor when   in comparison TLW  
in JW animals run very unnatural

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NaBHCuxqhA

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Look up the clip where the Trike breaks free in the camp..I think that's closer to what we're seeing.  Also the scene is full of animals running that really shouldn't be..so there is that.

[Arul]

Papo please make raptor JW

[suspsy]

Putting aside the issue of scientific accuracy for a second, wow, both the CGI and the animatronics sure do look awful. That downed sauropod looks as phoney as a four dollar bill. And the way the dinosaurs move is a major step down from previous films.

It's 2015 and this is the best ILM can do? Yuck.

[stargatedalek]

The level of detail in some of those reviews is great. 

Well the one gives us a reason for no feathers..at least sort of.

Jurassic Park: the game explains it a lot better if you ask me

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The level of detail in some of those reviews is great. 

Well the one gives us a reason for no feathers..at least sort of.

Jurassic Park: the game explains it a lot better if you ask me

True..but this is the first in-universe word we've heard on the subject.

[stargatedalek]

True..but this is the first in-universe word we've heard on the subject.

I'd forgotten that the game is no longer canon since JW retcons it.

[Sim]

http://www.jurassicworld.com/tickets/john-hammond/

scroll down to the first review.

Clicking on the link redirects me to the main Jurassic World website page, but I think I've found what you're linking to by doing a google search for a cached version of the page which gave me this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HatNrRVQxeEJ:www.jurassicworld.com/tickets/john-hammond/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

This is the review you're referring to, right?: "As a longtime dinophile and autodidact, the emergence of Jurassic World and its reborn dinosaurs has long held only the utmost of fascination as a field of academic inquiry for me. Without hesitation I purchased the Hammond Package to inspect these resurrected anachronistic animal anomalies. I was delighted through and through by their appearance, and the presence of Jurassic era vermiform plantlife only added to that acclaim. My only regret is that Hammond, et. al. had to cut corners with the amphibian DNA viz a viz hybridization. You don't need to be a birder to know that dinosaurs were feathered."


I think it's better to give invented qualities to a fictional animal (in this case the I-rex), than a real one like they did with Dilophosaurus in the past.  The absence of feathers on the Gallimimus and Velociraptor is one of the more annoying inaccuracies.  What really bothers me though, is that they're still calling their dromaeosaurids "Velociraptor".  It's like having a movie where tigers have important roles, but calling them "cheetahs".  It's not cool, it's not smart, it's just wrong!  Things like this destroy excitement and enthusiasm I have for this film.  At least the JW "Velociraptors" look better than the ugly ones from JP3.

There's a chart at the bottom of each prehistoric animal's page on the JW website that shows the animals in the park and their size, including their 4 metre long Velociraptors with a head that looks nothing like a real Velociraptor's head.  I wonder if all those animals will appear in the film, in particular Suchomimus, Baryonyx and Metriacanthosaurus.  It looks like Spinosaurus won't appear in JW.

I noticed that as well. Either a continuity issue, or they have it where their hands can either be accurate or pronated, which would irk me.

The theropods have always been able to pronate their hands in the JP universe.  This hasn't changed in JW, even if we now know they couldn't pronate their hands, as pictures of the JW dinosaurs show:

Hehe, I just noticed it looks like the Tyrannosaurus is chasing the Gallimimus!  Looking at the Gallimimus picture, does it have... teeth!?  Even the JW website says, "Gallimimus doesn't have a single tooth in its entire mouth."  The pronated hands on the theropods don't bother me as much as the impossibly flexible tail of the JW Ankylosaurus.  Its armour is very wrong too.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Those images they have up, though detailed are more like marketing imagery. I'm hoping they are not examples of the actual product in the film.

[Arioch]

Yuck.  Those "dinosaurs" look every bit as rubbery and fake as the ones from the 2005 King Kong movie (that stampede scene with galloping stegosaurs also is quite reminiscent of a similar scene from that movie, improbable physics included). I get that the CGI is unfinished- or so the apologists say, but is that the first impression they want to give to the audience?

And this time around they used bird and croc DNA, yet somehow they managed to make creatures that look even less like real dinosaurs than previous installments. Bravo.

[triceratops83]

I think CGI is a lazy movie-making tool. Back in the mid nineties film makers were still trying to put the effort in to making CGI work effectively to achieve the best possible result, and to prove the worthiness of this new technology...But now, it's just an easier way to go about things in order to crank out movies faster. Why build sets when you can use CGI? Why use stunt doubles when you can use CGI? Pyrotechnics, practical effects, makeup, puppetry all require effort, when you can just stuff some nerd in a broom closet with a computer and tell him to get the shot done. It takes the soul out of a movie. And we've been bombarded with soulless films since the late nineties.
   Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against CGI itself, and it's great when used properly - but in my opinion it's just being used to crank out movies at a faster rate. Time and mistakes can do wonders for a movie. Jaws, IMO, is the best movie of all time. And we all know how problems with the mechanical shark contributed to the film's suspense. And in Jurassic Park, only shots unachievable with practical effects were chosen to be computer generated. It's clear bad CGI is the result of studio laziness, otherwise, after more than twenty years we still wouldn't be complaining about bad special effects when the technology should have been perfected if not used inappropriately.

[Dinomike]

I think CGI is a lazy movie-making tool. Back in the mid nineties film makers were still trying to put the effort in to making CGI work effectively to achieve the best possible result, and to prove the worthiness of this new technology...But now, it's just an easier way to go about things in order to crank out movies faster. Why build sets when you can use CGI? Why use stunt doubles when you can use CGI? Pyrotechnics, practical effects, makeup, puppetry all require effort, when you can just stuff some nerd in a broom closet with a computer and tell him to get the shot done. It takes the soul out of a movie. And we've been bombarded with soulless films since the late nineties.
   Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against CGI itself, and it's great when used properly - but in my opinion it's just being used to crank out movies at a faster rate. Time and mistakes can do wonders for a movie. Jaws, IMO, is the best movie of all time. And we all know how problems with the mechanical shark contributed to the film's suspense. And in Jurassic Park, only shots unachievable with practical effects were chosen to be computer generated. It's clear bad CGI is the result of studio laziness, otherwise, after more than twenty years we still wouldn't be complaining about bad special effects when the technology should have been perfected if not used inappropriately.

I agree with this! I think this is evident in what happened to Star Wars - the early movies, in my opinion, were much better when they couldn't pull of all those CGI tricks but had to use imagination and put some effort in screen writing. I recently watched JP again and it actually is really good when it comes to story telling and crating suspense with no CGI whatsoever. The characters, which at the time I believe were labelled as narrow now appear rather deep compared to a lot of blockbusters out there.

[triceratops83]

The characters, which at the time I believe were labelled as narrow now appear rather deep compared to a lot of blockbusters out there.

Exactly. You get a real sense of who Muldoon is for example. With minimal screen time you find out he is competent, grounded, practical, realistic. He is the best person for the job and misses no opportunity to learn about the creatures under his ward. He strives for the safety of the staff and visitors in the face of unknown threats. He is familiar with predatory animals and has tackled the world's most powerful animals. If anyone can get the Park back under control, it is him. That is why when he meets his fate you get a real feeling of dread for the villains of the film. He fills all of the requirements of a supporting character. Compare him to a minor character in many modern films who waste so much time on "character development" and get you absolutely nowhere. Minimal screen time when used appropriately can do what hours of misused film cannot.