How come Jurassic Park still looks so good?

[Sandor 797]

Yesterday I saw Jurassic Park again. Although I find the film average at best, I was amazed how great the special effects still look after 12 years.

I mean really, REALLY good. Like still some of the best CGI work even by today's standards.

Why is that? 12 years of developing and improvement possibilities have resulted in very little.

There are some truly AWFUL CGI effects out there (the monkeys in Jumanji, the sea creature in Waterworld, the beast from The Relic and many, many others).

Of course; films like The Lord Of The Rings, King Kong, Starship Troopers, The Matrix Revolutions and even The Prequels have outstanding visual effects.

Only in their complexity (read amount) have they exceeded JP, but NOT in their realism.

Anyone agree/disagree?

And what would you consider the best CGI visual effects films ever (feautering monsters, beasts, spaceships, etc.).

[Romão 2,274]

The scene of the T-Rex coming out of his cage still is the finest CGI moment in history, IMHO.

[Sandor 797]

The scene of the T-Rex coming out of his cage still is the finest CGI moment in history, IMHO.

Yeah, still ONE of the... Just wait till you see Kong vs. two T-Rexes, falling of a cliff, into the vines, down to the ground, fighting again...

THAT scene will give the best of JP a lot of competition, BUT for me to say that 12 YEARS after JP reinforces the fact that JP truly had unique, exceptional visual effects. When the T-Rex is pursuing Jeff Goldblum (who holds a "torch")...man that scene is sooo realistic. So well done! And this was 1993!!

[batmanand 0]

They didn't try to do too much, they did what they could do very well and Spielberg actually cared about the film when he was making it.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

There are some truly AWFUL CGI effects out there (the monkeys in Jumanji, the sea creature in Waterworld, the beast from The Relic and many, many others).  

Really i just bougth the DVD recently, and:

In my opinion, the raptors are, starting to look outdated ('fake'), speacially tongue, eyelids...

The T-REX breaking the fence it perfect though.

JP is just aging due to the Animatronic dinosaurs.

And the king kong battle can be supercool, but the trex is so ugly it cannot be in par with JP . And the spino-rex battle is regardless what they say perfect. (JP is like the prequels, people think the movies are awful, and then the say the same with the cgi)

Of course; films like The Lord Of The Rings, King Kong, Starship Troopers, The Matrix Revolutions and even The Prequels have outstanding visual effects.

I dont like that 'EVEN' at all. Needless to say you put them the last one. Of those movies, there are not cgi human bodies that move better than in the prequels...

I think Narnia is going to have outstanding CGI animals, specially the lion.

[Sandor 797]

but the trex is so ugly it cannot be in par with JP

The T-Rex in Kong moves like a real animal. Did you see the clip?

Not saying JP made it look or move artificial, just that Kong's T-Rex is more convincing.

[King Mark 3,631]

I think Narnia is going to have outstanding CGI animals, specially the lion.

From the previews it still looks like a CGI lion.

K.M.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

but the trex is so ugly it cannot be in par with JP

The T-Rex in Kong moves like a real animal. Did you see the clip?

Not saying JP made it look or move artificial, just that Kong's T-Rex is more convincing.

I dont think so...

anyway he can move but he looks artificial.

Dont see the point in the Crododile 'skin pack'

[Sandor 797]

anyway he can move but he looks artificial.

Then we saw a different clip.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

he can move realistically, but he looks (design) artificial. (sorry i didnt explained myself well)

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Mind you, though, if you're comparing the Rex in the main road attack from JP to the Kong/Rex fight, keep in mind that in Kong, the animals are in harsh sunlight, whereas the main road attack takes place at night. Daylight is much harder to simulate.

[Sandor 797]

he can move realistically, but he looks (design) artificial. (sorry i didnt explained myself well)

What you maybe meant to say is that you own a time machine and that you know what an actual T-Rex looks like.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I think we all assume the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are the way they really look (and sound). That's not true, but they were the first we saw living and breathing on the silver screen. All movie dinosaurs that came after are measured and compared to the ones in Jurassic.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I know his teeth did no sprouted from his lips.

And the back is like a crocodile's

It ruins the bird theory out loud...

[Hitch 57]

I think Narnia is going to have outstanding CGI animals, specially the lion.

From the previews it still looks like a CGI lion.

K.M.

So does King Kong!

[Vaderbait1 1]

I think they've simply tried to keep pushing the envelope. Instead of perfecting simple things they skip over and try to overanimate.

It's hard to put a finger on, but I THINK part of the reason why so much CG looks bad is that it moves too much. Even more than a living thing. And it has too much of a flow. Real things jerk around a bit, but not too much. For instance, when I person walks, they don't bounce rhythmically and smoothly. And when a 50 foot (or more) giant ape moves around, it's not going to be bouncing off cliff sides and buildings and be believable. Whatever happened to the rule of thumb that big things moved slower than small things?

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I think Narnia is going to have outstanding CGI animals, specially the lion.

From the previews it still looks like a CGI lion.

K.M.

So does King Kong!

Both are very good, but there are still small noticeabilities.

Why is the T-Rex called V-Rex? is this a new species found? Or since it is in our time is an 'evoluted' specimen? (the skull is not anything like the t-rex...)

[Sandor 797]

I know his teeth did no sprouted from his lips.  

And the back is like a crocodile's  

It ruins the bird theory out loud...

Glad you said theory there...

And the T-Rex in Kong is clearly a fictional, perhaps further evolved T-Rex, since the movie takes place in 1933. There were never any real King Kongs you know. Unless you count Tom Selleck. What happened on Skull Island is clearly a mystery of nature. And of the imagination.

[Sandor 797]

It's hard to put a finger on, but I THINK part of the reason why so much CG looks bad is that it moves too much. Even more than a living thing. And it has too much of a flow. Real things jerk around a bit, but not too much.

This is exactly why the beasts in King Kong look so good!

I feel that often CGI creatures look like they're FILLED WITH AIR.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Yeah, I can agree with that.

Why is the T-Rex called V-Rex? is this a new species found? Or since it is in our time is an 'evoluted' specimen? (the skull is not anything like the t-rex...)

Well, instead of just calling it an Allosaurus, they decided to come up with some unnecessarily lame excuse. "It evolved" is REALLY lame.

[robthehand 3]

JP's CGI doesn't look as good now, but it still looks amazing (better than anything else ILM's done).

In answer to the question - I have absolutely no idea. It just does.

[Jeshopk 8]

The secret is that they used as much motion capture and referencing as possible (using hand moved skeletons and animal footage.) And they were very meticulous with textures and lighting matching. Add to this Spielberg's free moving camera and the animals seem further ingrained in the environment.

Compare that to the dinos in the Phantom Menace celebration scene and you'll see how badly hand animated creatures stick out. They look like wind up toys.

Motion captured Clonetroopers are always better than the hand animated ones. You can immediately tell it is fake when the from-imagination animators get a hold of it.

The T-Rex in Jurassic Park is better animated and lit than either Lost World or the new King Kong. In fact, the King Kong one looks the most like a walking videogame.

Also, Mighty Joe Young CGI looks more realistic than Kong.

Like videogames, you may have better consoles and abilities, but a good team can make better graphics on Dreamcast than a bad team can on XBOX.

The only effect in War of the Worlds I thought were lacking were the organic effects. The machine effects were great. But that mouth that ate Cruise was just cartoony. And don't get me started about E.T.s "new face". That is far more insulting than the Star Wars special edition. At least he released the original or my kids would never see E.T.

I actually think Jar Jar looks pretty good when he's not mugging or moving all around. I like his effects when he's just nearby. He's a good and realistic character, then. But he was humanoid, so he should have been motion-captured at all times. Apparently that is a point of argument in the animation department.

[Vaderbait1 1]

That's pretty extreme, not letting your kids watch a movie because they changed it since you were a kid.

I've been looking at some clips and images of Kong from the new movie, and I've gotta say, WETA doesn't change do they? Their effects continue to look like paintings instead of real things.

As for Jurassic Park, I think even today all of th effects look real. The only thing I think may look bad (but it may not even be CG, I haven't seen it in so long) is that in some shots the T-Rex looks faded. Sort of like the Rancor in ROTJ. Every detail looks stunning, he just looks like he's not the right brightness, if you will.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I actually think Jar Jar looks pretty good when he's not mugging or moving all around. I like his effects when he's just nearby. He's a good and realistic character, then. But he was humanoid, so he should have been motion-captured at all times. Apparently that is a point of argument in the animation department.

Jar Jar is a damn good effect, but he's an annoying piece of poodoo as a character in a Star Wars movie (in TPM at least).

They were originally going to just replace Ahmed Best's face, but it turned out they had so much difficulty getting the neck to blend with the costume that it was easier just to create the entire creature digitally. However, they arguably should have just rotoscoped Best's performance, rather than inflate it in the animation department.

[Jeshopk 8]

That's pretty extreme, not letting your kids watch a movie because they changed it since you were a kid.  

I'd probably let them watch it, but grudgingly. However, most of the Star Wars SE changes will dazzle the kids. Star Wars is not as emotional as E.T. so E.T.s face matters more. E.T. needs a soul for the movie to work. But Jabba can look like a pile of crap in ANH because you don't need to feel for him or believe in him for the movie to be entertaining.

[Vaderbait1 1]

I will begrudginly admit that even though the Gungans were the most irritating creatures ever created, but they are probably also the best CG creatures (other than Yoda) in film.

However, they arguably should have just rotoscoped Best's performance, rather than inflate it in the animation department.

Yeah, definitely. Inflation is too kind a word.

[Jeshopk 8]

Yeah, definitely. Inflation is too kind a word.

Ironic that Lucas said that if he was too animated, he would look unreal, like Roger Rabbit. And look at the results. Did the animators even hear him? Or do they just think humanoids can move like that? Whatever the case, I think the animators were too focused on their love of animating, and Lucas was to cheap to do a lot of re-do's.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Well, if that's true, maybe his "original vision" for TPM can be replacing Jar Jar with a toned down non-triple flipping into a pool/stepping into poop/farting/getting his tongue numbed.

Can't do much about the voice, but I would think simple cutting, pasting, and re-doing a CG shot shouldn't be too hard.

[gkgyver 1,645]

I think part of JP's realism is due to the fact that most scenes involving dinosaurs take place in the night or dark places. Whenever we see them in broad daylight, it looks a little more dated, like the encounter with the Galimimus herd.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Jurassic park was THE film that was gonna start a new revolution in special effects. Spielberg knew it, and Lucas and ILM certainly knew it.

This was a highly anticipated film, so if the effects did not live up to expectations it would have seriously dented ILM's reputation.

[Sandor 797]

Jurassic park was THE film that was gonna start a new revolution in special effects. Spielberg knew it, and Lucas and ILM certainly knew it.

From a certain point of view it all started with the Genesis-sequence from Star Trek II.

Tron and Willow (first morphing scene) took it further.

Then The Abyss and Terminator 2 (liquid effect) and finally...

...Jurassic Park.... creatures!

[Jeshopk 8]

From a certain point of view it all started with the Genesis-sequence from Star Trek II.  

Tron and Willow (first morphing scene) took it further.  

Then The Abyss and Terminator 2 (liquid effect) and finally...  

...Jurassic Park.... creatures!

I think the stained glass knight in "Young Sherlock Holmes" was the first CGI character in a motion picture. It still looks great today. T2 was the texture revolution. But Jurassic park was the organic revolution.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

...Jurassic Park.... creatures!

That was the challenge.

For ILM Jurassic Park wasn't just another assignment, it was a huge technical challenge.

[Sandor 797]

I think the stained glass knight in "Young Sherlock Holmes" was the first CGI character in a motion picture. It still looks great today. T2 was the texture revolution. But Jurassic park was the organic revolution.

Forgot that one.

For ILM Jurassic Park wasn't just another assignment, it was a huge technical challenge.

I absolutely agree.

[Jeshopk 8]

It is amazing tha spielberg took the gamble to push the limits based on that one demo shot by Muren. It hardly looked good enough for motion picture quality. That is why Spielberg is the man. He trusts people. Must be a dream to work with as a composer!

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

It is amazing tha spielberg took the gamble to push the limits based on that one demo shot by Muren. It hardly looked good enough for motion picture quality.

Really it looked many times better than the motion capture one.

JP would have been great (but now it would be very outdated) if they had just used that CGI model.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I, at last managed to see the fight.

And sorry rolad, i think Kong is grat but the rexes do not move realistically. The scene in the shallow water is awful IMO. And they are UGLY, and look more than retroevoluted... (i would think an evoluted rex would loose his little arms and have bigger head... but thats just conjetures of mine...)

What i think they didnt want to create the (inevitable) JP comparison and decided to do another design on the dinosaur. But i really prefer the JP look and sounds.

Glad you said theory there...

I dont know if it is still a theory, though nowadays the majority of the paleontologists agree with it (unlike years ago)

Some dinosaurs did have feathers, and no known reptile has them.

Luke who believes dinosaurs were the middle ground from reptiles to birds.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

That is why Spielberg is the man. He trusts people.

Look where that got Dumbldore.

~Sturgis

[MrAsterisk 0]

That is why Spielberg is the man. He trusts people.

Might as well, since the studios will keep gladly pouring money into him until he gets it right.

[MrAsterisk 0]

The best CGI in a motion picture would have yo be that from an all-animation movie. In that case, I choose Monsters, Inc., which has excellent motion effects with clothing and fur, among other things. Finding Nemo is a close second for its ambient water effects (puts Shark Tale to shame).

EDIT: Sorry for double-post. Forgot I had just posted.

[Trent B 337]

You guys are judging something that can barely be seen that was recorded from a hand held cam-corder....for all we know this bit of scene betwen the T-Rex's and Kong will actually look good on the big screen...

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Another milestone people never seem to notice, was for CGI environments: in 1991 in Star Trek VI, all the over-head shots of the Klingon courtroom were CGI.

[gkgyver 1,645]

And sorry rolad, i think Kong is grat but the rexes do not move realistically. The scene in the shallow water is awful IMO. And they are UGLY, and look more than retroevoluted... (i would think an evoluted rex would loose his little arms and have bigger head... but thats just conjetures of mine...)

I'm sure you know exactly how a real T-Rex moves ...

And UGLY doesn't automatically mean UNREALISTIC. Do you think an A- grade company like Weta wouldn't do some serious research before designing the dinosaurs.

[MrAsterisk 0]

I'm sure you know exactly how a real T-Rex moves ...    

And UGLY doesn't automatically mean UNREALISTIC. Do you think an A- grade company like Weta wouldn't do some serious research before designing the dinosaurs.

1) He could be a paleontologist... Who knows? EDIT: Nevermind, Luke is a veterinarian. Nonetheless, he probably knows quite a bit about muscle movements, animals, their relationship, and so on.

2) You'd be surprised how much corner-cutting can get past the average moviegoing public.

3) That's why he said conjecture.

[King Mark 3,631]

That first dinosaur we see,the brachiosaurus reaching into the tree,was never convincing,even in 1993.

K.M.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

sure it was, and still is, its an amazing sequence

[Lurker 5]

I got goosebumps everytime I saw that part in the theater.

Neil

[Richard Penna 3,686]

I do just listening to that cue

And I think the dinosaur is amazing, I wonder why they can't do the same with people these days.

~richuk - who thinks some of the CG people in HP&PS look far from perfect.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Oh, definately; one of the worst parts is the Jell-O Quidditch game.

~Sturgis

[GoodMusician 56]

I've noticed that a lot of the CG shots, from a distance, look amazing...

but up close... they get interesting.

It is mentioend in the making of Featurette that they were afraid of how close in camera the animals could get before they "started to fall apart."

This is true because, if you watch the "T-Rex rescue and Finale," right when the raptor is stalking the group and about to pound--moments before she is eaten by the t-rex--if you look at the feet, they seem to float on the floor.

If you watch the Brachiosaurus scene and zoom in the film up to the brachio's neck and head, the movements are a little too fast and look animated.

So, I guess, the reason why it looks so real is because most of the CG in the movie is from a distance--whereas in say Star Wars, you have a full fledged CG Charcter in a tight camera angle.

I'm not knocking JP... I am a HUGE fan of the film... I mean, I've written a fan fic, I have JP toys sitting on around my room with the dinosaur artwork posters and such... huge fan... but I also know a lot of the mistakes as well lol...