Jump to content

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


King Mark

Recommended Posts

No not needed, JP is one of few movies that have CGI which doesn't look dated. Dinosaurs have never looked better in any other movie that came later, including TLW and JP3 (really bad CGI...), King Kong, even Walking w/ Dinosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No not needed, JP is one of few movies that have CGI which doesn't look dated. Dinosaurs have never looked better in any other movie that came later, including TLW and JP3 (really bad CGI...), King Kong, even Walking w/ Dinosaurs.

Yes. However WwD managed to maintain the realistic movements on grand scale. It sacrificed textures for movement and interaction. And lots of puppets!! It's hard to compare JP to WwD because the later had creatures constantly for three hours and actually managed to make it work.

But WwD wouldn't have been made without JP, it was actually inspired by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I suppose this could be compared to the re-compositing done for the Star Wars SE's. They generally exactly recreated the shots using original elements, only with digital technology that didn't leave matte blobs and lines. Improvement? The effects guys fought with that stuff when originally assembling these scenes. Now the snow battle looks pretty flawless.

Big difference from adding Sebulba, Jar Jar, "NOOOO!" and all that crap to Mos Eisley.

Link to comment
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

Not quite. Even if they worked without keyframes, modelling each frame completely by hand and thus skipping any movement interpolation done by the computer - you'd still have significant advances in skeleton structure and texturing/lighting since then. And those do affect the look of the actual movements.

Regarding that weight problem I mentioned above... it's not exclusive to CGI. Those hell dogs in Ghostbusters have the same problem, and I remember being annoyed by that even before JP came out.

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

That VERY much depends on the film in question. There are some where it's all just about the look, perhaps even about an intentionally artificial look. There are also films which use CGI as a tool for things you don't even recognise as an effect (Zemeckis' What Lies Beneath comes to mind, I was truly impressed with the CGI in that case, but I didn't even know there was any until I watched the making of).

But most of the time, FX just won't look cool if they don't have a certain amount of realism to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how I feel about this issue:

"Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly to digitally scan them or insert them into virtual models. That's why the model shops have more work nowadays than back in the optical age. It's why there is more miniature work in The Phantom Menace than all 3 original movies together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JP3 has very bad cgi and very good cgi.

The raptor's shots both animatronic and CGI are better in all pows than the ones in JP, except for the scenes.

JP scenes are way cooler and firghtening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me write it again...

The raptor shots (both animatronic and CGI) are better in all P.O.V.s than the ones in JP, except for the scenes they are in.

You are saying the raptors look better in JP3, apart for the scenes were there are...raptors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly to digitally scan them or insert them into virtual models. That's why the model shops have more work nowadays than back in the optical age. It's why there is more miniature work in The Phantom Menace than all 3 original movies together.

Lots of miniature/biggature stuff still done these days. Often combined with CGI, obviously, but that's my point: The new technology doesn't necessarily replace the old one, it can complement it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I suppose this could be compared to the re-compositing done for the Star Wars SE's. They generally exactly recreated the shots using original elements, only with digital technology that didn't leave matte blobs and lines. Improvement? The effects guys fought with that stuff when originally assembling these scenes. Now the snow battle looks pretty flawless.

Big difference from adding Sebulba, Jar Jar, "NOOOO!" and all that crap to Mos Eisley.

:thumbup: Exactly. There's a big difference between mitigating "mistakes" such as matte lines and going in to completely redo parts of the shots.

In my opinion, Jurassic Park is just fine as it is. The CGI has aged very gracefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought about this myself actually, though possibly because of a different movie. Given the nature of cgi, I think it's okay to update it. It's not one sfx medium replacing another, but rather an update of the visual effects using the same technique, on a fundamental level. I wouldn't object to Titanic, or T2 getting the cg update treatment.

Lee - who has no internet connection till next Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big NO to the entire idea of this thread. Sorry, KM, I just don't agree at all. If you improved it now, it will be outdated later, just like the SE's of Star Wars that came out in 1997. Once you start, people won't stop. And soon there will be many different revised versions. This is different than extended cuts where you are adding to the existing films completely NEW material. This is changing the look and feel of the film in the same exact moments, erasing the prior. Granted I'm sure if Spielberg had decided to do this, he would at least present the original too. But in the end... why? In 50 years people will want to redo the effects again with their new WOW 3D CGI EXTREME effects plug-in. And even sooner than that, they will want do the ADD MORE DINOSAURS TO BACKGROUND SHOTS TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE POPULATED! It's an insult to the people who originally worked on the film, who put hard work and many many hours to give us what was delivered and so well received when it was released. Especially when it is replaced by something that was probably done in far less time with far less enthusiasm or creative input. Honestly, I'd much rather have a remake. At least that would be it's own film. I really think a film should exist in the way it was for the time it was created.

So... NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Optical effects had their shot and nature selected them for extinction.

You're implying that a film composed entirely of stan winston puppetry will (points pen at you).........succeed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me write it again...

The raptor shots (both animatronic and CGI) are better in all P.O.V.s than the ones in JP, except for the scenes they are in.

You are saying the raptors look better in JP3, apart for the scenes were there are...raptors?

No, the animatronic and CGI raptors are better than the ones in JP in all aspect but one.

The JP scenes are way better and the raptors in that film benefit from it. They are memorable scenes while in JPIII is just more CGI shots in another film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel they can edit whatever they want in any movie for upcoming home media or theatrical re-release so long as they keep the originals available.

The DVD release of E.T. was ideal. As ridiculous as the changes were -- CGI ET, the walkie-talkies, the removed questionable dialogue -- the original classic was also available. The updated version, while offensive and blasphemous to many, could easily be ignored as easily as if it didn't exist.

But when a movie is altered and becomes the only version available in the current format, that's when you have a problem.

Each successive change of Star Wars becomes the only official current version, making the only way to enjoy the originals the disc 2 of the last DVD set or to keep your VHS copies. No Blu-Ray.

I never saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture before getting The Director's Cut on DVD (love it), but I am sure there are people who are bothered that the theatrical version never came to DVD. And there will be folks who are upset if The Director's Cut never becomes available on Blu-Ray.

Now, they want to change Jurassic Park? Go ahead, but make the original version available, too. Don't market it as Jurassic Park because it's not.

If they want to digitally update a movie, like remove dirt from the frames, that's one thing. An old movie like King Kong or The Wizard of Oz can benefit. But don't take an old movie like Mary Poppins and do something stupid like replace the cartoon sequences with 3D rendered CGI sequences to look more realistic. The archaic cartoony look is part of the nostalgic charm of Mary Poppins and was never meant to look real.

Jurassic Park looks as good as it could have in 1993, and certainly could look better after 18 years of technology improvements. Just don't make a 2011 rework the new benchmark to enjoy this movie.

Another point is that all the people who spend their time updating these old movies would be better served working on new movies, wouldn't they? Oh well, it's better to have a job than not in this economy. I'm not sure that they need to take advantage of all the saps out there who feel compelled to buy each successive iteration of their favorite movies.

But as for Drax's question of re-recording scores, I love re-recorded scores. If I had to choose between an incomplete original soundtrack with mastering issues and a re-recorded complete score....I'll take both and say thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why the dinosaurs in JP III look unconvincing and poor compared to those in JP and TLW. I'm sure they had advanced beyond what was more prototype technology in 1993. Why, then, does everything look so animated and cartoony?

I think TLW overall has the best-looking dinos. Every CG shot is a masterpiece. They look so utterly real and convincing, they contribute to Stan Winston's animatronic versions appearing comparatively less convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. For early CGI films like T2 and JP an enormous amount of effort was put in getting each shot as good as it could be under the circumstances.

I think its because the situations in which CG is used is simpler. I don't think T2 had superior CG to T3 honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. For early CGI films like T2 and JP an enormous amount of effort was put in getting each shot as good as it could be under the circumstances.

And there probably was a greater sense of being involved in something that had never been done before, so the level of self-demand criticism was probably much higher. Plus, with a lesser number of CGI shots, more time could be devoted to each one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its because the situations in which CG is used is simpler. I don't think T2 had superior CG to T3 honestly.

That's probably part of the reason. CGI in T2 was used for, what, the liquid metal? Yeah, they nailed that. Probably a few other shots used digital technology. The rest of the movie seems to be mostly practical effects, Stan Winston makeup and stunts. There was more authenticity to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave "Jurassic Park" well and truly alone. Yes, other films have done CGI better (or should I say: more accurately), but "J.P." still holds up as the supreme example of its craft. It's not just about what the CGIs look like, but also about how they are used, ie: sparingly. The film has the right amount of CGI shots and they are on-screen for the right amount of time. I am sick and tired of this need/desire to retrofit new on to old. It didn't work for "Star Wars", and would not work for "J.P.".

"Jurassic Park" is to CGI, what "2001" is to traditional effects films - the best example there is. Keep it that way. Don't dilute its impact by tarting it up. It simply doesn't need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, terrible idea. The CG dinosaurs are the best to date. The Animatronic dinosaurs had glitches but to me that's part of the film's charm. It was what it was, just leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the question be if it would make the film better? JP the film is a mediocre, severely dumbed down adaptation of a really good book. New CGI wouldn't change that.

The book and movie are two very different things. And while I'd agree the movie doesn't really work as an adaption of a previous work, it still is a terrific stand alone thrill ride

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really i have no complains for the raptors in JPIII, nor the pteranodons or some spinosaur shots.

Not everything looks THAT bad.

The last raptor scene is probably the best animatronic-CGI mesh in the whole trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of it looks poor. The effects guys just weren't going for the same type of thing as the earlier movies. New direction, I guess. Combining the new (cartoonish) look for the dinosaurs with ugly bright soundstage lighting was just awful. Pterodactyl and Spinosaurus were ugly designs.

One dino I did enjoy briefly was T-Rex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spielberg knows not to tinker with his movies with pointless CG. He learned that lesson with E.T. Hence why the theatrical version will be the only version released on Blu-Ray. So the chances of the first two Jurassic Park movies getting upgraded CG, most likely will NOT happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, terrible idea. The CG dinosaurs are the best to date. The Animatronic dinosaurs had glitches but to me that's part of the film's charm. It was what it was, just leave it.

Agreed. Although it is not a CGI shot, the shot of the raptor looking up at the ceiling, with ACGT projected onto its body is jaw-dropping!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spielberg knows not to tinker with his movies with pointless CG. He learned that lesson with E.T. Hence why the theatrical version will be the only version released on Blu-Ray. So the chances of the first two Jurassic Park movies getting upgraded CG, most likely will NOT happen.

Yes be he learned the WRONG lesson. Changing a familiar puppet to CGI and using it for SOME shots in the same film look way too jarring. Plus altering something that affects the story like erasing the guns to be more PC

I still think it's not the same as upgrading an already ALL CGI shot with better shaders/textures..etc..which was the point of my topic that SOME films could be CGI tinkered while others can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one a film is completed and released it's most likely in it's very best form.

I want my Star Wars like it was in 77 which is superior to ever altered version

I want my Raiders like it was in 80 which is superior to the dvd version, I like the reflection

I want my E.T. like it was in 82 which is superior to the 2002 bastardization.

I want my Jurassic Park to remain like it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the closeups of the Brachiosaurus skin as it passes the camera looks like bad cgi, though. It stands out like a sore thumb every time I see it. Everything else in JP is fine and actually still quite brilliant, especially the night shots of the T-rex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the closeups of the Brachiosaurus skin as it passes the camera looks like bad cgi, though. It stands out like a sore thumb every time I see it. Everything else in JP is fine and actually still quite brilliant, especially the night shots of the T-rex.

Really?

I thought the Brachiosaurus at the beginning of JP were some of the most realistic CGI examples in the whole franchise...

Even the Stegosaurus in TLW looked more fake, I thought.

Link to comment
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.