Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

I don't think its 'bad', just old and dated. It also probably suffers from being a slow moving object, and in broad daylight. I think the T-Rex being mostly in the dark helps mask a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I cannot find any single flaw in the shot of the t-rex from inside grant and malcom's car just as she gets out of the enclosure. Really. Even the ilumination from the car's frontlights matches.

The previous shot is also good, but i think the blu-ray shows the age of the cgi (in the DVD this did not happen)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its 'bad', just old and dated.

Well one glance at your bad, old, dated and relentlessly mediocre photography tells me you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burger Flipper;

Not only are you a pretentious hack, you have also managed to practically obliterate any chance you ever had of making a career in the entertainment industry.

Jason, Ricard really. Isn't it time for AI to be banned again?

You gave it a shot, and while I appreciate your humanity, i think we all knew this was doomed from the start.

Stop whining. You have no power here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah come on.. AI gives this place this "distinct FSM-board feeling"...

Haha, see the chicks' behind me, and all the guys will follow. Plus I have the gay conglomerate all sewn-up, except perhaps Joey..but I always liked his creepy stories...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burger Flipper;

Not only are you a pretentious hack, you have also managed to practically obliterate any chance you ever had of making a career in the entertainment industry.

I'm not at all bothered by what you think of me, or my hobby. I'm quite content in that department thank you. And if you are the gatekeeper of getting into the entertainment industry, then I suppose I'm somewhat disappointed that the industry will go to shit a lot sooner than I thought it would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, AI:

01 - Personal attacks will not be allowed. Please be RESPECTFUL of one another, allow for differences in opinions, and please don't make anyone feel that they cannot post their views in this forum.

Congratulations, you're banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of re-tinkering CGI.

Why don't Pixar update the textures on some of their earlier stuff? Toy Story looks crude compared to part 3.

Despite the likely tongue-in-cheek nature of this post, it reminds me of an important point - CGI is a medium that's constantly changing. Software becomes outdated ridiculously quickly, and the files become difficult or impossible to open. This can happen in just a few years, not to mention a decade or more. This is why you'll rarely see existing CG footage being actually revamped in 3D...you can redo it from scratch, or make cosmetic 2D changes, or augment it with additional 3D elements, but actually editing the original files is rarely practical. It can make certain things difficult, but we should probably grateful for the fact that it makes it more difficult for revisionists like Lucas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CGI is definitely dated. The story isn't. Personally, I find both charming to this day.

Filmmakers just need to learn to make a film and move on. It's like revisiting that memory of a summer fling you had 20 years ago, then you make a rash decision to show up at her house and you find out she's married with kids. It's awkward.

Pretty much. Once the film is finished, let it be. Accept its inevitable flaws and rough spots, and move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. And don't get me started on Tin Toy!

Why not just redo the whole of "Andre And Wally B", while you're at it, and the stained-glassed man from "YSH"?!

The whole idea of NOT redoing these films, is that they represent a history of an artform. To tamper with them makes the films less vaild.

Personally, I prefer the silghtly unrendered look to the hyper-real look. It lets me know that I am working not just a film, but an evolving art form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A real purist view would be that you could only ever release a film in its original version, copied directly onto the same medium originally used to project it.

The extreme view in the other direction would be to insert better actors, voice over bad dialogue with new lines, re-shoot poor optical effects, and re-record damaged soundtrack.

I'm guessing nobody here is at either extreme, so the question is, how much revision is too much? Is it okay to clean flecks and remove static? Is it okay to improve contrast, brightness, color, and audio balance? If you can make those types of changes, what is wrong with improving the texturing on a digital effect?

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with doing that, but in this particular instance it is unnecessary and would likely be counterproductive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. But couldn't someone argue that when you originally watched it, there were flaws in the film itself, the technology used to project it, and the audio equipment? There wasn't Dolby Digital 7.1 or whatever in the 70s, so by cleaning it up we're altering the pure experience we would have had watching the original film in its original, flawed form.

I think it's definitely a different caliber of modification, but it is a modification nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about the filmic experience, I'm talking about the film in its purest form, the way it was intended to be seen. Directors didn't want there to be scratches and distorted sound, etc. Or at least I hope they didn't.

Take Criterion for example, if a film has a mono 2.0 soundtrack, they preserve it. They don't add in a fake stereo surround sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like having both options. As long as the track isn't altered beyond the sound field, I'm usually cool with 5.1 mixes. Psycho's new mix brings out more than could ever be heard before. Everything contained in the 5 channels is from the original sound track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about the filmic experience, I'm talking about the film in its purest form, the way it was intended to be seen. Directors didn't want there to be scratches and distorted sound, etc. Or at least I hope they didn't.

Take Criterion for example, if a film has a mono 2.0 soundtrack, they preserve it. They don't add in a fake stereo surround sound.

Just playing the devil's advocate here - the "director's intention" is the argument George Lucas made to clean up the Vaseline under Luke's speeder and led him down the path of adding Jabba to the hangar scene.

In a less extreme example, I saw a documentary on the making of the Sound of Music blu-ray. The film had deteriorated to a point that the original color of the grass had faded in one scene. So the restorationists had to determine what color of green the grass was initially. They admitted that they had the ability to make the grass whatever color they wanted it to be - even purple - but in the end they had to make a decision based on conjecture and guessing at what the color was intended to be. In all likelihood, the color they chose wasn't precisely what our parents or grandparents saw in the theater. It may be better, though.

So if restoration can never be exactly precise, why not "enhance" the film a little bit? And if you can enhance a little, why not enhance a lot?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about the filmic experience, I'm talking about the film in its purest form, the way it was intended to be seen. Directors didn't want there to be scratches and distorted sound, etc. Or at least I hope they didn't.

Take Criterion for example, if a film has a mono 2.0 soundtrack, they preserve it. They don't add in a fake stereo surround sound.

Just playing the devil's advocate here - the "director's intention" is the argument George Lucas made to clean up the Vaseline under Luke's speeder and led him down the path of adding Jabba to the hangar scene.

I disagree with a lot of the changes Lucas made to the OT, but I don't disagree with his right to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought copies of the original prints were kept at the Library Of Congress in Washington D.C. for keeping it in a good but safe place for historical reasons. Now if he gave that properly strictly to the government, I really don't think he would be able to get that out and destroy them.

I remember hearing something about the whole Library Of Congress deal quite a few years ago but never knew if it was true or not.

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...