The Spirited Back Nine ...

[Bairstow]

Looks pretty cool!

Eh. I still prefer the Willem Dafoe version.

 

[SJN1279]

I actually enjoyed the 20 second teaser more. I just am not a fan of Chris Pratt as the lead. I didn't like him as a Lego, I didn't like him as Han Solo, and I doubt I am going to like him as Sam Neil.

 

[bhg469]

Looks pretty cool!

OK between avengers2 and this the scores in these trailers are giving me chills...

 

[spacemt354]

OK between avengers2 and this the scores in these trailers are giving me chills...

i was thinking the same thing. Is it just me or are trailers getting better and better? Also Star Wars 7 trailer is supposed to be released in select theaters on Friday

 

[RayTheFirefly]

I don't get why CGI looks so silly nowadays though. It looks better in 1993. Most of those shots look like an animated film.

 

[DisDan]

I think it looks fantastic. Can't wait to see it!

 

[Smiddimizer]

I actually enjoyed the 20 second teaser more. I just am not a fan of Chris Pratt as the lead. I didn't like him as a Lego, I didn't like him as Han Solo, and I doubt I am going to like him as Sam Neil.

Pikitis...

 

[Bairstow]

I don't get why CGI looks so silly nowadays though. It looks better in 1993. Most of those shots look like an animated film.

Mostly the direction.
Spielberg shot the original, and actually has an eye for shot composition and how to make the most of real locations, framing actors and action in a way that enhances the sense of place and motion.
A director of lesser talent can just rely on being able to move the CGI's point of view wherever is easiest or first pops into mind.

Also, not all CGI companies are created equally and just because something is new doesn't mean it looks good.

 

[RayTheFirefly]

Mostly the direction.
Spielberg shot the original, and actually has an eye for shot composition and how to make the most of real locations, framing actors and action in a way that enhances the sense of place and motion.
A director of lesser talent can just rely on being able to move the CGI's point of view wherever is easiest or first pops into mind.

Also, not all CGI companies are created equally and just because something is new doesn't mean it looks good.

I agree. But this seems to be a current theme. Pretty much every movie in the last 8 years has been awful CGI. The only one that I think didn't look cartoony was Gravity, and that's even a stretch. Is this intentional for most directors now, to show off the amount of CG budget? Or is the technology really not there yet for us to make it looks actually realistic?

 

[Matt7187]

So does this new movie mean that Jurassic park is getting a reboot at IOA? Obviously, if this flops, it won't happen, but what do you guys think?

 

[Bairstow]

I agree. But this seems to be a current theme. Pretty much every movie in the last 8 years has been awful CGI. The only one that I think didn't look cartoony was Gravity, and that's even a stretch. Is this intentional for most directors now, to show off the amount of CG budget? Or is the technology really not there yet for us to make it looks actually realistic?

I'm a little taken aback that you feel that every movie of the last 8 years had "cartoony" CGI.

I think there's always going to be good CGI (Iron Man, District 9, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and cheesy CGI (Oz the Great and Powerful, Battleship, all the Resident Evil movies)

 

[ThemeParkJunkee]

Will Jurassic World be available in IMAX? Looks perfect for it.

 

[RayTheFirefly]

I'm a little taken aback that you feel that every movie of the last 8 years had "cartoony" CGI.

I think there's always going to be good CGI (Iron Man, District 9, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and cheesy CGI (Oz the Great and Powerful, Battleship, all the Resident Evil movies)

Some were better than others, but I do believe that most of those look pretty animated rather than real (District 9 maybe a little better than the rest, but still not what I'd call "convincing"). Obviously "every" is a pretty hyperbolic word, but I really do feel like most recent efforts have been extremely fake looking, almost to the point of detracting from the movies.

 

[Mike S]

Will Jurassic World be available in IMAX? Looks perfect for it.

I sure hope so.

 

[stevehousse]

Looks pretty cool!

Yes it does! I can't wait! Looks so much more promising that Jurassic Park 3!

 

[DC0703]

Looks pretty cool!

Very excited for this. I love the fact that they are getting back to the feel of the first movie. I still remember how blown away I was when I saw that one in the theater the first time. The two sequels lacked the magic of the original - both had intense action scenes but weak scripts. In particular, they had to jump through some pretty large logical hoops to get the original cast back on the island. I like almost everything I am seeing about this new movie.

 

[asianway]

I agree. But this seems to be a current theme. Pretty much every movie in the last 8 years has been awful CGI. The only one that I think didn't look cartoony was Gravity, and that's even a stretch. Is this intentional for most directors now, to show off the amount of CG budget? Or is the technology really not there yet for us to make it looks actually realistic?

I couldn't tell you how cartoony the Gravity special effects were I was too busy dealing with the horrendous presentation of science & physics.

 

[DC0703]

I don't get why CGI looks so silly nowadays though. It looks better in 1993. Most of those shots look like an animated film.

To be fair, most of what we saw in the trailer is probably unfinished CGI. I think we'll need to wait until closer to release to make accurate assessments of the CGI. In the end, the effects will probably not have the same tactile quality that the practical effects in the first movie had, hopefully they will be improved a bit though.

 

[Ignohippo]

I took it as that @71jason was just saying that this site had plenty of coverage of the garage opening, so he doesn't know why @Ignohippo didnt see much about it. Especially since @Ignohippo posts here regularly.

Huh? I never once said that this site didn't cover it.

The thing that I am addressing is PhotoDave and 71Jason being up in arms because the garage opening was supposedly covered ad naseum on Disney blogs and social media and I only saw it getting the coverage that it deserved (and small mentions here and there).

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's a Spirited thread. When--if?--@WDW1974 comes back, I bow to his judgment as to whether or not it was a relevant topic. In the meantime, we're just foamers and doom-&-gloomers talking back and forth yet past one another, and personally I see no point in continuing the discussion.

Plenty of the people saying its a common celebrated milestone are more of the "doom and gloom" group.