Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Robespierre
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#126 Post by Robespierre » Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:22 pm

Ok good..that does bode well considering the original is one of my favourites. That being said, I remember they did apparently mess up the Bourne movies, so I'll err on the side of caution especially since some work would have to be done to colour correct the original. I'll keep my mind open and wait for caps.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#127 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:56 am

Luke M wrote:
Ribs wrote:Shame they're forcing you to buy the Johnston and the Trevorrow to get to the Spielberg(s), though
Having caught the Spielberg’s and Trevorrow on tv on a lazy Saturday, I’ve found Jurassic World to be a lot more rewatchable than The Lost World.
That said, you loved the film upon first watch, right?
Luke M wrote:I thought Jurassic World was fantastic.
I could certainly see how you found it rewatchable, if that's the case. On the other hand, I'd consider throwing my television into a ravine if I couldn't change the channel.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#128 Post by tenia » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:09 pm

Ribs wrote:Shame they're forcing you to buy the Johnston and the Trevorrow to get to the Spielberg(s), though
There will be directly individual releases in Europe, so maybe they're just not announced yet in the US.
Ribs wrote:I don't believe there has been a single UHD release from any of the studios that's taking a 35mm source and not basing it on a 4K scan. Plenty of 2.8K upscales from digital, but don't really see why there's much concern for these - they'll be based on a 4K transfer.
I suspect the concerns are about Universal's usual hands-on approach. They've been doing 4K scans for some years but in many cases, they couldn't resist digitally tampering with the results. There are some infamous examples like the latest restoration for An American Werewolf in London, and IIRC, Jurassic Park and The Lost World existing BDs were from new 4K scans which were digitally tampered with. Jaws was also slightly degrained though I always found the filtering to be extremely light on this one.

So past the scanning resolution itself, people are probably eager to see if the studio has learnt from its mistakes and will choose a more hands-off approach. This being written, if E.T. and Apollo 13 are anything to go by, there shouldn't be cause for worries.
Robespierre wrote:That being said, I remember they did apparently mess up the Bourne movies.
Only the first one, which seems to have used an older master for the UHD, with a poorly handled contrast correction.
However, it looks like Universal UHD reputation is otherwise quite good so far regarding the few catalog movies they released so far (E.T., Apollo 13, The Mummy trilogy, 3 of the 4 Bourne movies, The Grinch, ...).
Last edited by tenia on Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
andyli
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#129 Post by andyli » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:22 pm

Men in Black is Sony. I think some people are fearing that the Jurassic Park UHD turns into a T2 case, i.e. grains scrubbed for the 3D conversion process.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#130 Post by tenia » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:28 pm

Indeed, they're Sony. I reported them without realising that when looking at the blu-ray.com database, which has some of their releases under Universal.
andyli wrote:I think some people are fearing that the Jurassic Park UHD turns into a T2 case, i.e. grains scrubbed for the 3D conversion process.
Exactly.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#131 Post by Luke M » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:00 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Luke M wrote:
Ribs wrote:Shame they're forcing you to buy the Johnston and the Trevorrow to get to the Spielberg(s), though
Having caught the Spielberg’s and Trevorrow on tv on a lazy Saturday, I’ve found Jurassic World to be a lot more rewatchable than The Lost World.
That said, you loved the film upon first watch, right?
Luke M wrote:I thought Jurassic World was fantastic.
I could certainly see how you found it rewatchable, if that's the case. On the other hand, I'd consider throwing my television into a ravine if I couldn't change the channel.
Guilty. But I’m not nearly as high on it as I used to be but I still find it fairly enjoyable.


User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#133 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:52 pm

A fate worse than blacklisting

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#134 Post by Big Ben » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:54 pm

I can't wait to see Book of Henry 2.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#135 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:37 am

Image

That is..... some tagline.

User avatar
McCrutchy
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#136 Post by McCrutchy » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:58 pm

Fallen Kingdom certainly fell hard. I don't remember the 2015 film all that much because I think I tried to forget it, but the sequel just feels so painfully bland and pointless. If you felt like I do, everything you feared watching the trailer has come true, except more, because I didn't pay attention to the marketing that well.

The sequel provides
SpoilerShow
the requisite annoying child, the seems-too-nice-to-not-be-a-villain businessman, the "hardass" hunter/tracker, the annoying tag along 20-something characters who are there to relate to the teenage audience, and so many other tired tropes that the whole thing just becomes incredibly boring. Specifically in this film, there is a pathetically tenuous linkage to John Hammond in the form of a long lost business partner Benjamin Lockwood, who as far as I know, has never been mentioned before in any of the films, and was made up for the film. Lockwood is played by the usually excellent James Cromwell, who is nullified by one of the absolute poorest attempts at an English accent I have ever heard, not because the accent is that bad per se, but because it's hardly there. This would make some sense since Lockwood has a mansion in and apparently lives in California, but his live-in granddaughter (requisite annoying child) speaks with a perfectly natural English accent, which makes Cromwell's accent all the more puzzling.

Bryce and Chris are back to add nothing to the film, too. He has been building a cabin (!) and she has been advocating to move dinosaurs off of Jurassic World because a volcano is going to explode and kill them all. The film is ostensibly about a "rescue" of the dinosaurs that requires both Bryce and Chris as well as a small army of hapless supporting characters, including Ted Levine as the hardass tracker guy who you know will be eaten/mauled to death by dinosaurs. Midway through the film, the obvious twist that the snazzy young businessman who bankrolled the "rescue" is really out to exploit the dinosaurs to make dinosaur biological weapons happens, after which there is a dinosaur auction, and then the dinosaurs broken out are set free. That's right, the dinosaurs in this movie are basically a MacGuffin! And in case you thought the oh-so-tired plot would at least be executed in a novel, if not at least fun way, it isn't, thanks to the new 20-something characters (one of which is so annoying you want him to die almost immediately) and the child character, who all end up in the last act of the film with Bryce and Chris. Okay, that one raptor, Blue, is also here and is sort of a character, but she is not explored enough, just like the presence of B.D. Wong in both of these Jurassic World movies isn't explored enough, or how the ideas of dinosaurs as generically-altered beings being sold into slavery aren't considered. This is just a loud, dumb movie that unfortunately is also tired and old instead of exciting and innovative.

As a side note, Toby Jones is in this (doing an iffier American accent than Rafe Spall), and in his first scene, he is dressed so that he looks exactly like an overgrown schoolboy. It's really kind of creepy, especially as he's supposed to be playing this corrupt businessman, and you would think a big-budget Hollywood film would find suitable costumes for each actor with a significant part. He looks more appropriately-costumed in a different scene later in the film, but his first scene was giving me all kinds of flashbacks to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Of course, Jeff Goldblum gets basically one scene, which is two scenes and bookends the film, so that the filmmakers can counter the "he's only in one scene!" complaint. It's a complete waste of the actor and character, but hopefully he got a fat paycheck for some really easy work sitting in a chair. It's also fun to see Ted Levine and Geraldine Chaplin, as well as a short cameo from Peter Jason as a Senator, but that's it, really.
The one good thing is I saw this in Dolby Cinema, which is new to my AMC, and it was my first movie on my new A-List membership, so the ticket was "free". I enjoyed the sound, and the sharp picture was also appreciated, although many of the effects looked a bit soft. Bryce looks good in her bust-flattering green top, but beyond that, I'm definitely looking forward to forgetting this film as soon as possible.

Post Reply