Jurassic Park 4 [Jurassic World] (no spoilers)

[amargasaurus cazaui]

This was done before in a sense and works perfectly provided you go into it from the start with the plan. A few years back Clint eastwood produced a pair of movies filmed similtaneously . They were Flags of our fathers, and Letters from Iowa Jima, about the battle for the island of Iowa Jima during world war 2. Both movies were made for a fraction of the cost of making two movies because while he was paying the cast he just filmed BOTH of them. In the world of filmaking the single highesst cost is paying your actors and if you can get two films while they are on set and contracted, you can release twice, with all that brings. He made a small fortune using this method. It does not cost more, it cuts the price in half and brings twice the return. It just is not that hard once you have a plan. And yes, for the animatronics, it would have been a very simple thing to have them shelled so the outer covering could be changed. Most are already made like this, with the outer layer built over an electronic robot of sorts.
   The point of it would be to cater to both sides of the feathers debate of course.

[CityRaptor]

And Peter Jackson did it with three Movies for Lord of the Rings.
But this is another situation.

[stargatedalek]

the example you gave was for 2 different movies (and as CityRaptor said 3 in the case of LOTR and Hobbit, Hunger Games did the same thing IIRC)
not 2 different versions of the same movie as you had suggested

while a sort of alternate universe modern science canon might be interesting, I think that sort of thing is best left to expanded universe and not the main film line, let alone doing the exact same film again just with different dinosaurs

[stoneage]

What? Educational TV putting out non-educational things? At least Discovery hasn't done a documentary on, say, mermaids or something.

Discovery is the company that owns and operates Animal Planet, and most of the other 'edutainment' channels. So when Animal Planet puts out dung, it came from the gut of Discovery. Imagery is everything.

Discovery had a show about dragons.  They treated dragons like they were real, just like dinosaurs, only still present in modern times.  It was just like WWD.  It was entertaining

[stoneage]

I don't find opening doors unrealistic, if dogs, cats, corvids, parrots, cockatoos, squamates, and tortoises can I don't see why dromaeosaurs couldn't have
if a spinosaurus vs tyrannosaurus fight was to happen my money would be on spinosaurus, just saying
the JP spinosaurus is a conservative estimate and it has a sail rather than a ridge/hump, the real thing would probably have been significantly larger and most certainly bulkier than the JP version

We've discussed spinosaurus vs T-rex on the forum before.  Most people seem to think T-rex would win.  T-rex had bone crushing serated teeth.  Spinosaur had teeth for grasping fish.  It would have been no contest like a Pit Bull vs a German Shephard.  The smaller Pit Bull would tear the German Shepherd up.

[stargatedalek]

I think it would be close, probably neither would survive long after winning
I guess really I could see it going either way

[amargasaurus cazaui]

There are plenty of examples here that could be shown for doing multiple versions of a movie, from current 3-D versus regular format, to the movie Swordfish with different endings.It would have at minimium made a great alternate feature on the blu-ray disc.I believe it will not be long before you go to theater and have the option to watch some movies with different endings depending on your choice. Regardless, the concept is highly commercial , could easily have been done, and would have made many happy.
I cannot really see where just saying it is a different situation makes it that different, many fans wanted feathered dinosaurs and when you sit down and actually ask..how many scenes would require changing? Six maybe seven? really, it just isnt that diffcult or complicated. Gwangi stated in the first movie, its entire length the dinosaurs appeared..fifteen minutes total?

[stargatedalek]

3D conversion is different, they already have a 2D version and then make it 3D
the only way it would possibly be feasible economically would be to add feathers afterwards
trust me when I say CGI feathers on animatronic dinosaurs would look horrid, and still not be accurate

[tyrantqueen]

This was done before in a sense and works perfectly provided you go into it from the start with the plan. A few years back Clint eastwood produced a pair of movies filmed similtaneously . They were Flags of our fathers, and Letters from Iowa Jima, about the battle for the island of Iowa Jima during world war 2. Both movies were made for a fraction of the cost of making two movies because while he was paying the cast he just filmed BOTH of them. In the world of filmaking the single highesst cost is paying your actors and if you can get two films while they are on set and contracted, you can release twice, with all that brings. He made a small fortune using this method. It does not cost more, it cuts the price in half and brings twice the return. It just is not that hard once you have a plan. And yes, for the animatronics, it would have been a very simple thing to have them shelled so the outer covering could be changed. Most are already made like this, with the outer layer built over an electronic robot of sorts.
   The point of it would be to cater to both sides of the feathers debate of course.

I have not seen either film. But let me ask you this: how different are each versions of the film? Are both they exactly the same, except for one cosmetic change? Or do they have different dialogue, scenes, and characters?

[HD-man]

Honestly, I don't know if I Can trust any Educational channel these days.

AFAIK, the BBC & PBS are the only channels that still make consistently good science/nature shows (E.g. "Life" & "Wild Kratts", respectively). I used to love watching the Discovery Channel & Animal Planet, but now they're full of garbage like "Yukon Men" ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/nature-up/2013/may/17/bloodthirtsty-wildlife-documentaries-reality-ethics ) & "Mermaids" ( http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/29/mermaids-return-from-the-depths-of-tvs-chum-bucket/ ), respectively.

Discovery had a show about dragons.

Actually, that was AP. I didn't mind it though b/c unlike "Mermaids", it wasn't trying to trick anyone into thinking that mythical animals were real. As you can see in the following video, it's explicitly stated to be a "what if" show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UovE4fMNwiQ

[stargatedalek]

the shark week megalodon one had a 2 second disclaimer during the ending credits that it was fake
news channels even had to announce it was fake because people took it seriously

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Many modern films are being shot in 3-D nowdays, using advanced camera systems that record the movie as the 2- D version is being filmed rather than afterwards. The technology has changed alot since they used to shoot the film and then reshoot over it to make it 3-D.
  As for the whole feasible financial argument....they could have simply made two sets of outer skins for the animatronics, simple cheap and rather low budget . Aside from that, once the merchandising begins and toys are released the ability to release both feathered and Non feathered dinosaurs would have racked up far more revenue than they would ever be able to expend, no matter how they chose to create the dinosaurs. That aside from the gained revenue of having two versions of the original feature as well.
To answer your question TQ, they were two entirely seperate movies, using two different storylines, proving that two movies if planned properly could be executed for the price of one. I somewhat doubt the whole Jurassic park thing could have been done with one scene changed however....you would need a scene to establish the reason the dinosaurs were feathered, and then the set of action scenes themselves.
Around here they sell both of the Eastwood, Iowa Jima movies as a bundle now. The reason this movie is a good comparison to the discussion is because the battle scenes were so expensive to film that Eastwood felt capturing them from different angles and using them for two films would be cost efficient. He was of course right, and the same could be said for the special effects scenes in the upcoming movie of course. And a bit of trivia for those not familiar with those two movies, Mr. Eastwood then sat down and composed both soundtracks for the two movies, thus netting another pile of money he got to keep for himself.
It is a simple enough vision to forsee the producers of this new Jurassic park having sold both of versions I suggested as a Blu Ray special package for an 30-40 dollars. Nowdays wal mart offers a package where you get a digital, blu ray , and regular DVD plus a ten dollar theater ticket as a package anyways, for about that.
  That being said, my own personnal gut reaction is I am glad they stayed away from feathers for this movie....I only wish Horner had showed as much sense when he did the first movie regarding the warm blooded debate.

[Ultimatedinoking]

the shark week megalodon one had a 2 second disclaimer during the ending credits that it was fake
news channels even had to announce it was fake because people took it seriously

Really? It went that far? Sadly. AP isn't even about animals anymore, it's about tree houses and pools! Sigh. I guess that's what we have natgeo wild for

[stargatedalek]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsaBzYQCUAArdbf.jpg
new species list leaked
but I'm skeptical that the species list is going to be relevant, I think it will be like the embryo's in the first film
especially since many of the icons are based on stock images

[Gwangi]

Some of those I would really like to see on the big screen but I notice no Velociraptor on that list. And there are two spinosaurs but no Spinosaurus? Interesting.

[stargatedalek]

no mutant dinos either

[tyrantqueen]

Interesting but it doesn't necessarily mean we'll see the species mentioned. Anyone remember this?

[Gwangi]

Metriacanthosaurus is such an odd choice to include in JP, even if in name only. I once saw a cheap Dimetrodon labeled as Metriacanthosaurus. 

[Ultimatedinoking]

To make things worse, there's a smilodon labled as a dinosaur on the ad at the bottom of the page...

Isn't metriacanthosaurus a species of yanchungosaurus?

[stargatedalek]

smilodon?
where, I checked again and can't find it?