Jurassic World
Discussion
Otispunkmeyer said:
EDIT: Oh and 6) The cinema we went to had it shown in some weird square aspect. We waited for the film to fill the screen like it normally does when the license plate appears. But it didn't. We enquired and apparently its not been recorded in wide, but flat. So watching in 2D, we had two glaringly obvious black bars either side of the screen! I assume this is because it was filmed in 3D and they use a different aspect ratio? Apparently Tomorrow Land was the same.
JW was released in some weird 2.00:1 ratio at the decision of the cinematographer. I say weird because 99.9% of films these days are release in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1/2.39:1, and most cinemas only have lenses (on 35mm film projectors), format buttons (on digital projectors), and screen masking stops (increasingly rare) that accommodate these two ratios only. I guess that whereever you saw it either didn't have lenses that worked with 2.00:1 or the will/care to get another format set up on their digital projector, and just tried to make the best of what they had, and a few people like yourself noticed it didn't fit very well. To be honest most people don't notice things like this any more, cinema presentation standards have evaporated in recent years. That said, overall I would blame the film makers for putting it out in a weird non-standard ratio in the first place. It will be a bit off on everyone's TV as well as they too generally only have a couple of ratio settings.Gaz. said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Seen this on Friday. Only us in the cinema. Can see why, what a crock.
Far too many nods to the original, from the camera shots/angles, the clothing they had on (little lad wearing a tea-towel shirt just like the kid from the first) to straight up cut n paste jobs like *dramatic pause* "RUUUUNNNN!!!!". Not sure if that was the intention, but I hated it.
Other things wrong:
1) the interlude comedy moments... Marvel can pull these off, the little 10 second scenes where there is a funny quip or action. Here they failed big time, they all felt shoe-horned. Take for instance the CEO guy with his comedy helicopter skills (needless) and the instructor running for the bushes to vomit when he landed (needless). Or that guy from "New Girl" pretending to be a gallant hero by staying back to watch the monitors and leaning in for the kiss... flat as a f
king fence.
2) the secret plot thing with the army guy was dropped like it was hotter than hot. Chinese jonny ive seemed like an interesting chap but was quickly overlooked.
3) that kid. fk me kid actors are universally terrible, but I wanted to throttle this kid and his adolescent-keanu-reaves brother after about 5 minutes. One second he's wailing like its the end of the world, the very next he's all smiles shouting "wait till mom sees this!" like its all one big joke. Make your fking mind up lad, you're either terrified or you aren't!
4) them heels. Now I presumed the main lady who looked like a rip off pepper pots and tied her shirt in a bow above her stomach (again nod to the first one, I think) had also tossed her heels and was running around barefoot. Nope, had those ridiculous heels on the whole time. Sorry but you're ankles would be in smithereens (so I am reliably informed by my OH, just so people don't think I go running in heels!).
5) Above posts just reminded me, product placement. Obvious to the max. If we weren't getting shots of varios Mercedes (including a 6x6! and cool Unimogs), we were getting shots of all the fast food places and tat shops you normally find at theme parks.
It really did feel like a pea-roast of JP with some bad comedy, bad acting and a ton of bigger is better gloss thrown in. I have to say I wasn't even all that convinced by the CGI, which considering the time span between this and the first one which pioneered the technology should be something that isn't even questioned. Riding a motorbike through the woods flanked by raptors is a cool image, but it looked like a video game. Also some scenes had entirely too many dinosaurs in, like they were showing off how many dino's they can render in a single scene. Just not necessary.
I want what Spielberger is smoking.
JP1 is still the top dog in this series.
EDIT: Oh and 6) The cinema we went to had it shown in some weird square aspect. We waited for the film to fill the screen like it normally does when the license plate appears. But it didn't. We enquired and apparently its not been recorded in wide, but flat. So watching in 2D, we had two glaringly obvious black bars either side of the screen! I assume this is because it was filmed in 3D and they use a different aspect ratio? Apparently Tomorrow Land was the same.
It's not a documentary ffs. Far too many nods to the original, from the camera shots/angles, the clothing they had on (little lad wearing a tea-towel shirt just like the kid from the first) to straight up cut n paste jobs like *dramatic pause* "RUUUUNNNN!!!!". Not sure if that was the intention, but I hated it.
Other things wrong:
1) the interlude comedy moments... Marvel can pull these off, the little 10 second scenes where there is a funny quip or action. Here they failed big time, they all felt shoe-horned. Take for instance the CEO guy with his comedy helicopter skills (needless) and the instructor running for the bushes to vomit when he landed (needless). Or that guy from "New Girl" pretending to be a gallant hero by staying back to watch the monitors and leaning in for the kiss... flat as a f
king fence.2) the secret plot thing with the army guy was dropped like it was hotter than hot. Chinese jonny ive seemed like an interesting chap but was quickly overlooked.
3) that kid. f
k me kid actors are universally terrible, but I wanted to throttle this kid and his adolescent-keanu-reaves brother after about 5 minutes. One second he's wailing like its the end of the world, the very next he's all smiles shouting "wait till mom sees this!" like its all one big joke. Make your fking mind up lad, you're either terrified or you aren't!4) them heels. Now I presumed the main lady who looked like a rip off pepper pots and tied her shirt in a bow above her stomach (again nod to the first one, I think) had also tossed her heels and was running around barefoot. Nope, had those ridiculous heels on the whole time. Sorry but you're ankles would be in smithereens (so I am reliably informed by my OH, just so people don't think I go running in heels!).
5) Above posts just reminded me, product placement. Obvious to the max. If we weren't getting shots of varios Mercedes (including a 6x6! and cool Unimogs), we were getting shots of all the fast food places and tat shops you normally find at theme parks.
It really did feel like a pea-roast of JP with some bad comedy, bad acting and a ton of bigger is better gloss thrown in. I have to say I wasn't even all that convinced by the CGI, which considering the time span between this and the first one which pioneered the technology should be something that isn't even questioned. Riding a motorbike through the woods flanked by raptors is a cool image, but it looked like a video game. Also some scenes had entirely too many dinosaurs in, like they were showing off how many dino's they can render in a single scene. Just not necessary.
I want what Spielberger is smoking.
JP1 is still the top dog in this series.
EDIT: Oh and 6) The cinema we went to had it shown in some weird square aspect. We waited for the film to fill the screen like it normally does when the license plate appears. But it didn't. We enquired and apparently its not been recorded in wide, but flat. So watching in 2D, we had two glaringly obvious black bars either side of the screen! I assume this is because it was filmed in 3D and they use a different aspect ratio? Apparently Tomorrow Land was the same.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 30th June 09:39
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 30th June 09:40
BTW, we saw it at a packed cinema, the lean in for the kiss had roars of laughter from the majority of the audience, and for the rest of your post you need a Woosh Pterodactyl.
t.Sorry. I thought it was bobbins, it just did not gel with me. The documentary comment is pointless, the way I perceived the film is how it is and those are the things that annoyed me. Thats just how it is. We all like different things.
If you liked it, good for you, I am glad your money was well spent there. But for me, not worth the price of admission and I'll be wary of the next Spielberg number.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 30th June 17:04
kev1974 said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
EDIT: Oh and 6) The cinema we went to had it shown in some weird square aspect. We waited for the film to fill the screen like it normally does when the license plate appears. But it didn't. We enquired and apparently its not been recorded in wide, but flat. So watching in 2D, we had two glaringly obvious black bars either side of the screen! I assume this is because it was filmed in 3D and they use a different aspect ratio? Apparently Tomorrow Land was the same.
JW was released in some weird 2.00:1 ratio at the decision of the cinematographer. I say weird because 99.9% of films these days are release in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1/2.39:1, and most cinemas only have lenses (on 35mm film projectors), format buttons (on digital projectors), and screen masking stops (increasingly rare) that accommodate these two ratios only. I guess that whereever you saw it either didn't have lenses that worked with 2.00:1 or the will/care to get another format set up on their digital projector, and just tried to make the best of what they had, and a few people like yourself noticed it didn't fit very well. To be honest most people don't notice things like this any more, cinema presentation standards have evaporated in recent years. That said, overall I would blame the film makers for putting it out in a weird non-standard ratio in the first place. It will be a bit off on everyone's TV as well as they too generally only have a couple of ratio settings.But, I like going to this cinema because I love the old Art Deco building its in. T'was obviously an old theater at one time and they split the stage up into cinema screens. Everythings on the piss, but its got character and I like it.
Otispunkmeyer said:
But for me, not worth the price of admission and I'll be wary of the next Spielberg number.
Did you have no idea at all it was a 12a movie, was directed by Spielberg, and was likely to be as cheesey as the first one? Perhaps you've not seen a Jurassic series movie before?popeyewhite said:
SWoll said:
It's directed by Colin Trevorrow, not Spielberg.
Spielberg's last summer blockbuster franchise film was Indiana Jones 4 in 2008, a far worse film the JW IMHO.
Yes it was terrible.Spielberg's last summer blockbuster franchise film was Indiana Jones 4 in 2008, a far worse film the JW IMHO.
I'm sure Spielberg was mentioned in the credits for JW somewhere.
I watched the film last week and thought it was pretty decent.
I was irked by the fact that the park was owned by a megacorp with legions of health & safety bods and lawyers and no one thought of doing a risk assessment?
"What, we're missing a super-duper, incredibly angry, likes his portions human sized type of dinosaur? Well let's go into the enclosure with a little knife and have a look while we leave the main gate open..."
Dynamic risk assessment people!!!
That and the jeep thing. Otherwise pretty good.
I was irked by the fact that the park was owned by a megacorp with legions of health & safety bods and lawyers and no one thought of doing a risk assessment?
"What, we're missing a super-duper, incredibly angry, likes his portions human sized type of dinosaur? Well let's go into the enclosure with a little knife and have a look while we leave the main gate open..."
Dynamic risk assessment people!!!
That and the jeep thing. Otherwise pretty good.
kev1974 said:
JW was released in some weird 2.00:1 ratio at the decision of the cinematographer.
It was so humans and big dinosaurs could comfortably share the same frame without having to pull back too much. Pretty clever really. Our Odeon was dark enough that the unused edges were not noticeable.Took the kids to see it earlier, bit of slow start, don't know if it was the 3d (were handed some new fancy mirrored glasses) but everything except the dinosaurs looked really fake i.e. the helicopter?.
Product placement was a bit obvious although i noticed the guy in the control room ripping the piss out of Pepsi when he was moaning about big corporations sponsoring & renaming stuff then shortly after it cut to someone holding a bottle of Coke.
The bit chasing the raptors was a bit WTF, the raptors racing through the forest at 40-50 mph, jumping logs, the bloke keeping up with them on the bike and the rest of the security guys suddenly appearing right behind in the trucks!
Last half an hour or so had the kids on the edge of their seats. Quite enjoyed it.
Product placement was a bit obvious although i noticed the guy in the control room ripping the piss out of Pepsi when he was moaning about big corporations sponsoring & renaming stuff then shortly after it cut to someone holding a bottle of Coke.
The bit chasing the raptors was a bit WTF, the raptors racing through the forest at 40-50 mph, jumping logs, the bloke keeping up with them on the bike and the rest of the security guys suddenly appearing right behind in the trucks!
Last half an hour or so had the kids on the edge of their seats. Quite enjoyed it.
kev1974 said:
JW was released in some weird 2.00:1 ratio at the decision of the cinematographer. I say weird because 99.9% of films these days are release in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1/2.39:1, and most cinemas only have lenses (on 35mm film projectors), format buttons (on digital projectors), and screen masking stops (increasingly rare) that accommodate these two ratios only. I guess that whereever you saw it either didn't have lenses that worked with 2.00:1 or the will/care to get another format set up on their digital projector, and just tried to make the best of what they had, and a few people like yourself noticed it didn't fit very well. To be honest most people don't notice things like this any more, cinema presentation standards have evaporated in recent years. That said, overall I would blame the film makers for putting it out in a weird non-standard ratio in the first place. It will be a bit off on everyone's TV as well as they too generally only have a couple of ratio settings.
Well I didn't notice this. What an odd decision, can't help but think it's some cynical studio move to force cinemas into buying new kit, like the whole 48fps Hobbit experiment.I'm sure they'll just crop to 1.85:1 for home cinema release, this is usually standard widescreen TV aspect right?
I'll just leave this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXGCyjJh48I
Edited by Veeayt on Saturday 11th July 18:56
The whole way through the film all I could think was how much better the 1st one was.
The storyline in this one was all over the place. Actors were terrible. It seems special effects is now more important than a good storyline.
Did the producers or directors even watch the film the whole way through? The whole thing just seemed to be jumping all over the place.
The storyline in this one was all over the place. Actors were terrible. It seems special effects is now more important than a good storyline.
Did the producers or directors even watch the film the whole way through? The whole thing just seemed to be jumping all over the place.
Veeayt said:
I'll just leave this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXGCyjJh48I
Ha. Edited by Veeayt on Saturday 11th July 18:56
But where would we be without plot holes......
tom2019 said:
The whole way through the film all I could think was how much better the 1st one was.
The storyline in this one was all over the place. Actors were terrible. It seems special effects is now more important than a good storyline.
Did the producers or directors even watch the film the whole way through? The whole thing just seemed to be jumping all over the place.
Watched the first one recently. It still totally holds up and is a better film. Yes stupid people, making stupid decisions, but I think the whole thing is acted and storied better. Ok there are some instances where the CG looks superimposed and isn't what you'd call brimming with detail, but they've managed to do just enough to make it look believable. For me the animatronics are still absolutely killer and they work much better in close scenes where today they'd probably stick a green box and CGI it in later. You can tell the actors are actually interacting with something real.The storyline in this one was all over the place. Actors were terrible. It seems special effects is now more important than a good storyline.
Did the producers or directors even watch the film the whole way through? The whole thing just seemed to be jumping all over the place.
The CGI in JW is, of course (and now having been able to compare back to back), much much better in fidelity. But, IMO it gets overused to the point where whats on the screen ceases to be become believable (granted we are talking about a theme park full of dinosaurs here). You can't suspend your disbelief at it.
Have also watched 2 and a bit of 3. Those movies are junk. I'd put JW behind JP1 though. But then they are essentially the same movie!
popeyewhite said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
But for me, not worth the price of admission and I'll be wary of the next Spielberg number.
Did you have no idea at all it was a 12a movie, was directed by Spielberg, and was likely to be as cheesey as the first one? Perhaps you've not seen a Jurassic series movie before?Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff