Jump to content

CGI re-tinkering of Jurassic Park? A good idea?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i saw the film in a little less than hd and it looked fine, you can see the CGI is dated but its not cringing. the rex attck cgi is perfect still.

The raptors eyes are strange, i noticed that the CGI model does not have a binocular gaze (it does not seem to be looking straight) as the animatronic and subsequent cgi models for the other movies. That is a big issue.. since it does not have a predatory gaze. it as a prey gaze...

If the models could be upgraded adding more shades and realism, i woul like to see it...and then choose if i like it or not...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a chance. Whether optical or digital, I want effects as they were.

Films are a product of their time.

Thank God Spielberg has said there will be no future modifications to his films for bluray.

Words can't express how strongly I feel about films not being changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certain criticisms you can make in regards to the effects, but the brachiosaur scene is pretty flawless, in my opinion. There's just some weirdness in the skin texture in a closeup shot. The scene leaves you wanting more as we get only fleeting glimpses at the dinos grazing in the distance before we're whisked off to the visitor center. Simultaneously awesome and nerve-wracking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want wires erased from The Wizard of Oz or War of the Worlds and I don't want garbage mattes removed from Star Wars.

There was no matt lines when I saw ESB in theater. They only seem to appear around the TIE fighters on home video

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon ,I'm asking if re-tinkering CGI is ok, not optical effects

What's the difference between face lifting optical effects and face lifting CGI?

The one thing that always bothered me in JP is that the Gallimimus always looked too light when running and jumping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a difference between updating an optical effect and an effect that was already CG.

No concrete reason there just is in my mind. The effect was created on a PC so why not add stuff like better textures, shadows and lighting if they become available

Link to post
Share on other sites

CGI and optical effect don't seem to "age" the same way in movies.

In a way if they re-did the CG in Jurassic Park it would benefit a new release on HD like Blu Ray

Would you be alright with optical effects replacing optical effects?

Except it's not really possible in most cases unless you re-shoot the movie

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that always bothered me in JP is that the Gallimimus always looked too light when running and jumping.

You know they passed the S-test*?

*The Skywalker animal proportions and behavior accuracy test.

So you see it like updating computer software or something?

Would you be alright with optical effects replacing optical effects?

Well, SW and ESB space batltes could benefit from the kind of great Optical effects from ROTJ. But better, do it all in CGI :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they re- shot part of Star Wars around 1983 with RotJ quality optical effects I don't think people would have mind as much as the SE's (like more paint colors and textures on the Death Star surface shots in SW) . That would have been enough so that you don't look at the screen and say hey that looks like crap

Because Lucas reasoning behind the SE's is that some effect shots did look like crap (and they really did)

Anyways to me it's not about preserving the film for it's historical value, but if the results are good or not. Right now some of the CG in Star Wars looks worse than the original effects. If Lucas really wants to keeps the SE's as his vision of the movies, he should update some of the 1997 effects too, especially in the Mos Eisley part of the film

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about if there is something wrong like the humdinger glitch in star wars?

That was a glitch created by tinkering with the film if it is as you describe. Given that, it would be a non-issue if they ever go back and release the original OT on bluray from original sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is... Let's suppose they "updated" the Brachiosaurus. It would look better graphically, but it probably wouldn't match the level of life the 1993 Brachio has. Despite how much they tried, they wouldn't be able to match that element of life-like that the first film has. None other dinosaur film before of after could ever do this, probably because thanks to the work and research of Phil Thippett.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm open to giving things a bit of a facelift, with the caveat that its being done by the director. It would be great if the original version was always available, not so much as an obligation but as a service for fans. That said, I do wish the SW OT was available in original form in a contemporary high quality format. I can somewhat symphatize with George Lucas retinkering of the OT in a way. As a photographer, I've had many photos where I've retinkered with as my skills at post processing has gotten better over the years, and I sure as hell think that the current version is the best one and I don't want the earlier versions to be seen again. Of course, none of my photos is a global pop culture phenomenon like Star Wars, but you get my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly don't believe Jurassic Park would look any better if they "updated" the CGI. These days, some films give me the impression that effects artists are overconfident and tend to make things look completely fake because they take on more than they are willing or able to do right. With Jurassic Park, CGI was used in limited circumstances - only where stop-motion was norm - and with great care.

Even with today's "texturing" or "shading" I still think they'd probably make the dinosaurs look like crap. We're getting to the point where Pixar and live-action are converging. You could have Mr. Incredible walk in on the Avengers and the audience would hardly notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing about Jurassic Park's CGI was the movement in the dinosaurs, how natural it looked. That has nothing to do with technology, but rather with the time that was devoted to each shot to get the movements just right. These days it's hard for animators to spend so much time on single CGI shots (Jurassic Park had about 50 of them, so the animators could focuse on each one for quite a bit). I suspect Phil Tippet has a lot to do with the quality of the movement of the animals. Just watch the T-Rex getting out of the fence scene, or his last scene with the raptors

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they *could* make it look better, I would oppose it simply because whether it looks good or not is irrelevant to me. I believe once released, films should be left alone other than cleaning the source (ie, the physical film being cleaned and scanned higher-res) but I don't believe the content should be modified or updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they *could* make it look better, I would oppose it simply because whether it looks good or not is irrelevant to me. I believe once released, films should be left alone other than cleaning the source (ie, the physical film being cleaned and scanned higher-res) but I don't believe the content should be modified or updated.

So scores shouldnt be re-recorded either?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they *could* make it look better, I would oppose it simply because whether it looks good or not is irrelevant to me. I believe once released, films should be left alone other than cleaning the source (ie, the physical film being cleaned and scanned higher-res) but I don't believe the content should be modified or updated.

So scores shouldnt be re-recorded either?

Instead of the original? No. People can re-record scores all they want...but that doesn't mean the originals are no longer available. Would I want the re-recording if that meant no more original? No.

I wouldn't want someone going back and adding instruments to the original Star Wars scores any more than I want George Lucas updating the film. Does that make sense? If someone wants to REMAKE Jurassic Park (ie, the same thing as re-recording a score), I don't care. That's fine with me. I just don't want the original replaced. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CGI in JP definitely looks dated, especially the brachiosaurus. For me, the truly breathtaking SFX from the film are the animatronics, which still look better than any SFX I've seen since then. Compare the T-Rex in PJ's King Kong to JP - it doesn't hold a candle.

That said, I wouldn't want any re-tinkering because the CGI in JP is what makes it a historically notable film. It's far from the only reason to love the film (for me it's not even the primary reason), but I think it is the main reason why the film is remembered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to fiddling with films years later and replacing models with CGI, my thoughts go towards the original model makers / painters and how they must feel when a director goes back in with a hatchet. I suspect that most of them have moved 'with' the times and would leap at the latest technology today, but considering they had spent months (or longer) making models and using really creative means to achieve the effects with whatever they had, surely they'd feel as if all their hard work was being ditched from history if the film was re-released with digital alterations to fully 'replace' the originals.?

Recently Spielberg says that it is Lucas' right to tinker with his own vision, but then again no big films are the work of just one man and although Lucas may be the 'top dog' on Star Wars, the films are the creation of many people involved in the process and they should be respected too surely?

I think the risk of a director/producer having too much of a perfectionist vision is that they absolutely hog the film as 'their' baby, when in reality it took two,three,four,several hundred people to tango and get that final film. Yes these people were hired, and few films are a democracy during the film process, but their individual input remains in the film long after shooting so it's the work of cooks just as much as the chef.

I lean more towards those people here who say that a film is the product of its time. Logan's Run, The Terminator, both for example are films where the effects seem unconvincing 'today' but in their time it wasn't really a big issue. I certainly don't remember thinking - "Very unconvincing" while watching them. I was more invovled in the film itself. The interesting story overuled any lack that may have been there in visuals, and maybe that is a subject in itself? 'Appearance' VS Story. It seems there is a risk of being so caught up in how it all 'looks', the rest of a film's other quality can suffer these days.

I can partly understand a director perhaps going back to a film years later and filling in the gaps of what he/she couldn't do at the time if that director has a very set vision in their minds already. The trouble comes when you give people the impression that you don'y have a finished vision in your mind and see your project as a never ending work in progress, and Lucas gives that impression with how he keeps fiddling around with star wars. The ugly road work signs are always up and he's just making s***t up as he goes along it seems, always striving for that absolute perfection which he'll never find. Perfectionists are never really content. By all means touch things up but don't scrub out from history, the work of other artists involved in the film years ago. That's my view on the Jurassic Park thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Brachiosaurus looks beautiful.

I don't need fx to look real, I need fx to look cool.

Somebody said something about the Gallimimus, I think they're fine. Other than the hand position, but that's common to all the theropods of the film. It's part of its 1993 essence, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.