I’m gonna be that guy. Correct: Brachiosaurus “brah-kee-oh-saw-rus” Incorrect: Bronchiosaurus “bron-kee-oh-saw-rus” As in: “That Brachiosaurus does not have bronchitis.”
I did an oopsie D: tbh I swore I checked the spelling/pronunciation when I wrote this script 2 months ago, but I guess a mistake was made at some point. C'est la vie.
Archie WahWah well, okay, if we’re going there... The dinosaur in Jurassic Park is unquestionably a Brachiosaurus. I have not watched the World movies beyond the beginning of the first one, because I could tell pretty quickly that I hated it. However, from the clip shown here it is difficult to tell if it is a Brachiosaurus or an Apatosaurus.* *Brontosaurus as a distinct genus of dinosaur may or may not actually exist. The consensus for almost 100 years was that they were the same genus, and Apatosaurus was named first. However, there was a paper in 2015 that suggested they may actually be separate genera. There is still some debate in the paleontology community as far as I’m aware. Personally, I’d stick with Apatosaurus until there is wider agreement. Several internet sources seem to suggest that both Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus appear in Fallen Kingdom, so make of that what you will.
Dean Drabin did the ADR. He's an old Foley guy. I watched the T Rex introduction scene on his couch in front of his $40,000 sound system. I pointed out several mistakes to his delight. Then we watched the chain room scene from Alien with HIS Foley work. It was absolutely flawless.
Spielberg put the Camera in a position that during an interaction between a dinosaur/human the Viewer gets the impression that the Viewer itself is interacting/threatened by the dinosaur. In the newer Movies the Camera is put into a position that the Viewer looks from a third position (far away at a safe place) towards a dinosaur/human-interaction. Practically removing the Viewer from being "inside the movie" 🤔
Imagine if Hollywood had access to RUclips, could watch these breakdowns and comments and then "fix" everything they are doing wrong in a matter of weeks.
@@ZReviews oh dont believe they think you're brain works or can outsmart THEM. OH no, sit down little guy on your keyboard and let us do the thinking...
@@iloveblondy nope. The problem is that the shit movies still give them tons of money (without the effort necessary to produce a good movie). So why bother? Consumers are to blame.
I still remember seeing the Brachiosaurus scene for the first time when I was a kid. I couldn’t believe it, I really thought they brought them back to life just to make this film
I got so scared from this movie that when my mom would take us to target to buy school supplies, i literally be scared to be around notebooks w Jurassic Park movie scenes on the cover lol
its just one of these events at cinema - like Jaws was, and Exorcist - and i dont think that size of event will happen again. I personally think it was the appearence of multiplex cinema - as it was fairly recent then - added with the master - Spielberg + and of course = use of cgi/animatronics - all packaged - into - somethign that had never been seen before. Our expectations were never set that high - and ever since - we have been like heroin chasers - chasing that dragon of Post Jurassic Park hit. But age too - you move on. For me JP - if it is the most satisfying film i ever saw - maybe, but where do i put Jaws, or Back to the Future, or Castaway, or American Beauty? Its one of the hardest things to list as most overall enjoyable - but it might be. Its certainly had impact and thats nearly half my life since watching it for first time.
More that that, its actually BETTER, we've scaled back in movies today. We get little tiny cookie cutter films now that show WAY to many angles of the same scene lol
And of course it helps that Rexxy was a real animatronic that was actually that scale so the CGI became less noticeable when Spielberg switched scenes.
I think also it had something to do with the fact that the CG T-Rex had to match up with the AA T-Rex. Spielberg says in the making of he only wanted audiences to say 'That's a dinosaur'
If you look around RUclips there are videos by Stan Winston studios that go into this, the main thing I learned was that the decision to film the T Rex encounter in the rain was a late one and this giant mechanical monster wasn’t made to withstand the changes in weight of being rain soaked, which made it tricky to control, so bear that in mind as it swings by actors heads.
Lumibear If I’m not mistaken, originally they were going to use the CGI Rex, but couldn’t get it to look right to his satisfaction, so they used the animatronic Rex, and yes that shot took extra work for the aforementioned issue, but it paid off
I saw this movie in the theater back in 1993. Disappointingly, I was the only one to laugh out loud at it. I'm not sure if everyone else missed it or didn't think it was as clever as I did.
And it later turned into one of the two best movie reference jokes ever, that incidentally both happen in Toy Story 2 ! (I think you know the other one ;) )
New films: The characters look in danger. Spielberg films: I’m no safe in my theater seat. That’s the difference. Spielberg made it real to us watching. The impact in the water, the steam on the glass from raptor nose. It felt real. Still the best
SO true. I stopped watching the sequels at least a dozen years ago because I was annoyed by the violence and body count. The original, on the other hand, made me afraid to let the dog out after dark, and I’ve rewatched it a couple of times since because it was good! (Tho to be a bit more fair in my comparison, I was about 14 when I saw the original on VHS, and I didn’t usually watch scary movies; I was almost 30 and in full control of the remote when I saw the #3 and gave up on them.)
I hope you didn’t learn too much from the movie because it’s facts when it comes to dinosaurs is incredibly wrong and 242 other people agree with you 😂 oh boy
YES!!! My friend asked me why I hate CGI and I really thought about that question for ages. Until I realized that the specific cases where I hate CGI are all the ones where the camera moves in ways that could only be achieved via CGI. For example: Almost every scene in a Transformers movie. An exception would be The Matrix and that is because the feeling of CGI fits with the in-movie world. When the camera follows the rules of a real-life camera then I usually have no problem with CGI. For example: Cloverfield. I told my friend this answer after a few days and he said "Man, you really think too much when you are watching a movie. No wonder you don't enjoy most films!" I tried to explain that I wasn't aware of why I wasn't enjoying the films until I really thought about it later but he didn't get it.
@@MandleRoss I get that too and i'm usually told " it's just a film" It's not just a film, they just don't see anything unless they are shown it specifically. Movies are made for the people who don't ask questions. Edited for auto correct misspelling words.
Also, while the first Jurassic Park was made to be as scientifically accurate as was possible based on the science available (excepting a few necessary changes, IE the Dilophosaur was given a frill to make it stand out visually from the raptors) the sequels just didn't care. I mean in Jurassic World you have a pteronodon CARRYING A WOMAN THAT OUTWEIGHED IT BY 80 POUNDS.
@@MandleRoss oh god I hate those people who say "It's just a movie". Just because they are fine with living a mediocre life, they think nobody should ever want to feel elevated emotions beyond the casual "shock and awe" that all movies today seem to prioritize over anything else. What if I wanted a nice painting, but it was only available as a print, should I just be satisfied with that too? No I don't want a print I want a real painting! And I don't want a mediocre run-off-the-mill Hollywood movie, I want an experience filled with passion and creativity, otherwise I could just as well watch any other movie on Netflix at home and save the money..
@@MandleRoss re-watch Transformers 1, it follows the law of camera even though its CGI. it is always kept at eye level or how high a human could really hold a camera
@@nderohan Not simply cg vs animatronic. JP paid closer attention to portraying the correct anatomy and simulating instinctive animalistic behaviour vs JW (which feel like actors following a tight script instead of animals reacting spontaneously). The cg Gallimimus herd in JP feels more like a group real animals than the same dinosaurs in JW.
The sequels changed from terror to thrills. The sequels feel like a heart-pounding roller coaster, but the original is more like standing face-to-face with a bear in the wild. You're not thrilled. You're *terrified.*
Right? And as much as I did enjoy Lost World, it was more thrills and less terror than the book version of it. Honestly, I think we'd another Spielberg take on JP and LW in an R-rated context to really show the true colors of the books: prehistoric animals acting for what they are, animals exploring their enviornment.
The first one also has this sense of powerlessness to it. That these creatures are dangerous and not under our control and that messing with them is bad news.
@@McGuire40695 The lost World Jurassic Park novel is overrated, it's really slow, the story actually begins in the pages 300-350, the rest it's boring, it's funny when it's more important how dinosaurs shit than develop a plot
Thats because of the pacing. Horror movies work because they are slower, they want you to feel like there is an unavoidable threat you anticipate. Compare any scene in JW to the scene in the first movie where Ian is running away from a T. rex just walking behind him. You expect him to be eaten but you don't know exactly if he would. Which animals in real life are like, they are unpredictable. Where as Jurassic World is now just a general action movie with explosions and over the top animation. It doesn't work the same because there isnt an unknown or a primal fear of being eaten by believable animal behaviors. The dinosaurs have identifiable personalities and don't really act like animals anymore. The also movie tells you now that the dinosaurs arent after the humans, that they just fight each other and there isnt any real danger to them anymore. The dinosaurs are just given unnatural moralities and fights only lean toward the defined "good" ones, and characters they know fans would get mad to see lose. Like when the T. rex stopped being a natural creature of no alliance, to a mascot in the JW movies protecting the humans.
Another reason I think the first one stands out compared to it sequels is its genre. The first movie is more of a horror/thriller adventure and was more character driven, compared to the bombastic action/adventure blockbusters of it sequels (especially Jurassic world and its sequel).
Yeah that's my biggest problem with Jurassic World and that garbage sequel. I really through that Fallen Kingdom will return to the horror aspect like the first one like i think Bayona said that it will be more graphic and suspenful. HAHAHAHA Nothing about Fallen Kingdom is threatning or scary, everything is just so fucking stupid in this movie it's painful to watch this is easily the worst jurassic park sequels i've seen at least for me. Jurassic World 3 will be a disaster.
@@alilshotofrhum The new movies can't be scary when are like art jokes every 5 minutes for children. I literally had nightmares as a kid after watching Jurassic Park now kids are probably not scared at all. Even the Pachycephalasaurus was scary in the Lost World, the Stigimolock in JWFK was like a loony tunes character.
@@DelcoAirsoft I was six when JP came out. During the scene where the dilophosaurus kills Nedry, I was shaking so bad my dad took me out to the theater lobby to get ice cream. After a few minutes I calmed down, and we went back in.
@@DelcoAirsoft I hate and also can't stand the mindset today where children can't handle any very serious topics or films. I was 8 Jurassic Park came out. I had nightmares a few times because of the raptors but I loved it.
Another cool detail: When the paleontologists discover amber near the start of the first film, you can hear deep orchestral voices in the background of the score. This sound returns whenever the humans make an advancement or realization, i.e. discovering amber, digging up bones, etc. The sound appears again when the raptors break out and learn to open doors. Now they're making the advancements, and the humans are being forced into the corner. You just don't get these small but important details in the new movies. Edit: People say it's called a leitmotif. Good to know.
Can't overstate the importance of the score too. Everything John Williams writes is gold, but I feel like it's especially impressive that his themes could make us feel a real emotional connection to a ridiculous dinosaur land. That ending theme really tugs at my heartstrings
while the star wars theme (& cantina piece) were the first that made an impression on me as a kid -- jp1 was the first score i owned on cd when the movie came to theatres and i think it's even today one of his best works in his catalogue.
Very recently watched Jurassic Park, First time for about 10 years. Was absolutely astounded by how the effects have not aged at all. The Trex and Jeep scene still looks about as "real" as any sequence I've seen in any film since
@@GokuInstinct1 The T-rex scenes work so well because it's much easier to capture it in the dark. Where it shows age is the first Brachiosaurus discovery scene where the resolution of the CGI does not really hold up, but that would have been harder to see back then unless you were in a theater. That said, it is still mighty impressive.
The effects themselves definitely didn't age that well, they were just used in ways that don't bring their shortcomings to your attention. A good example of this is during kitchen scene where a hand is propping up a raptor in the shot, you generally won't notice it unless you look carefully due to a combination of camera position, movement of the prop and lighting. If the same level of attention to detail, and planning were combined with modern technology the results would be even better especially in the daytime shots.
Although technically, in order to be exactly accurate, the pupil gradually grows/shrinks rather than immediately. The scene still gives me chills though, such an incredible detail!
One more thing to add: Color grading. The original was so beautifully natural. Colors looked close to natural making the whole thing so much more immersive. Virtually all new movies follow the moronic trend that can only be described as Hi Def HDR Sepia...
Also also, the first JP made a good job of not showing the dinos in full view very often. In the newer ones, they're in center frame all the time. There's no mystery or suspense, it's just action and then more action. But talking about grating. JW had a hoooorrrriible bluewash throughout the movie.. just.. why
Yeah, even Spielberg's own sequel is a very drab affair in terms of its palette. And it all looks like it was shot in California rather than in Hawaii or any other tropical location. (Unsurprising, as this is exactly what happened.)
This perfectly highlights Spielberg's genius. He doesn't just concentrate on 1 or 2 tricks or skills, he knows how to encompass many brilliant aspects of cinematography, film and storytelling at the right moments throughout an entire movie.
I'm from a small rural town and my grandma drove us 45 mins to the nearest town to watch this movie when I was 9. It was awesome and the best movie I had ever seen. The music plays SUCH a huge role in these memorable films. The original scores are amazing.
John Willams is a legendary composer. He has played such a significant part in so many movies with his scores. I mean he's right up there with the actors and directors as far as what makes the movies iconic.
Meanwhile I was 5 when the original hit theaters and for weeks I kept taking able how much I wanted to see the movie. My parents arranged baby sitter for my younger brothers and were going to take me to see it.. I was suddenly so scared of the dinosaurs I wouldn't go. So the left me with a baby sitter and saw the movie themselves 😂 Still is one of my favorite movies, and I watched the shit out of it on VHS, but apparently my young mind was not ready for them on the big screen lol
Chairman Meow IT SHOULDN’T BE CLICHE!!! It was the best. The only recent movie I remember that used them a little was Oblivion (2014) after that, no other film.
@@squidikka yea the typical crab crawl poltergeist or pale boy with hollow eyes is very annoying now. There is just something so instinctual about watching someone almost get eaten that puts you on edge.
@@monkeyofficial5159 dinosaurs didn’t have feathers and never will. It’s all speculation. They may as well could ha had human flesh and we would never know
And also instrumental (heh) in setting the atmosphere of a scene. Between Williams and Spielberg-- almost no one understands better when to let the music set the mood and when to back off and let the scene speak for itself.
I got chills hearing this: "Now, cinematography isn't about the beauty of an image or the dynamic nature of a shot. It really boils down to two things: what does the shot say, and how does it make you feel?" Such a truthful take.
It’s a great statement, the only problem with it as a wrap-up line is that it’s wrong. Direction is about what a shot says and how it makes you feel. Cinematography is about light and composition. The director decides what’s happening and the framing is at best a collaboration between the two.
Yeah, though cinematography, in its pure essence is lighting. Most cinematographers don't even run their own cameras. There's a Camera Operator's guild for that. And many directors chose final compositions. What the shot says and feels like is via all departments: directing, DP, production design, acting, etc., with the director being final arbiter. So I disagree with his statement, having worked on many film sets. And I kind of chuckled about the "cinematography isn't about the beauty of an image" bit. I've met many a cinematographer who are VERY concerned with the beauty of their images!
Except it is not true. The primary influence on what the shot says, and how it makes you feel, is the script (writer), the editing and, usually, the performances. Cinematography is lighting, framing and camera movement, all of which can and do aid the director to 'say' what he/she wants, and thereby hopefully create the feelings in the viewers intended. So much for chills...
I wasn't expecting to be told that SS is actually a master of visual storytelling, and something something about how new movies only just rely on fancy CGI to tell stories.
Having watched the orignal again recently, I noticed that in the first "T-Rex with the Jeep in the rain" scene there is no music at first, and for a good while. I think this made it even more thrilling than adding some exciting score over the top, and made you focus more on the terror the people were experiencing.
This video is absolutely brilliant and 100% correct. Blocking, framing, and purposeful cinematography are overlooked way too often nowadays. This was like a masterclass
Dude, you're absolutely wrong. What makes a could movie is *overhead orbital shots* . Overhead orbital shots *at all times* . Because uhmmm... Cheap CGI makes it possible. Production said that.
Also, knowing when NOT to use music and let the reality of the scene settle in/give the audience an emotional rest. Are you taking notes Michael Bay?...
YES! I couldn't stop laughing at the cacophony that "Transformers: The Last Knight" is. The story is like the ones I made with my friends...when we were 9. Visually everything tries to be big and in the end there is no contrast between what is supposed to be epic and the rest.
@@rock882josh7 Some movies are made with soul and passion still, but they are far less common. You don't realize it till you watch some random old movie that wasn't meant to be a drama and it's actually pretty good, and not rushed, and well acted etc... Dumb and Dumber is fantastic cuz it doesn't rush and you can enjoy the ridiculousness that just happened lol
Best point about the difference between old style filmmakers (Spielberg, Cameron, John Ford, Hitchcock etc) and the new ones who are literally making nothing else than 2 hours-long video game cut scenes.
@@plastique45 Indeed. Compare Jim Cameron's Aliens to anything in that universe made after it. Cameron was a genius at slowly building tension, but I.believe these days directors would be told to have an action scene after 25 minutes because the focus group said so.
I’m so happy I’m not the only one who noticed the Brachiosaurus shot in Fallen Kingdom was a rip off lacking in emotion. The original JP is still my favorite.
Yeah and I don’t like that they even tried to do that. I understand that they wanted to pay respect to the first film, but it’s like come up with something original instead of just riding off the nostalgia from the first film. The constant parallels come off as a bit lazy.
You should have seen it in the theatres, just the big screen and chest rumbling growls from the T-Rex. I never felt that scared in a theater until I saw the opening 20 minute Omaha Beach scene in saving Private Ryan 5 years later.
@@kennethholder8412 one of the few movies I saw more than once: the second time I watched the audience reactions as much as the screen. The whole cinema jumped out of their seats in the raptor sequences.
There are few movies I saw as kid which really changed me, JP is one of them, I just love that film. Also you can feel the best of 90s in that movie, all those toys and new technologies, today time is boring, you have same looking phone since 2012.
@@Pidalin I agree, it felt like going to the zoo for the first time and seing animals that you have never seen before outside from books from books or the tv.
Same, it was until I watched VFX Artists Reacts I learn about this. (They also explain the reason that scene was set at night raining, aside from being scary, was to have an easier time making the lighting on the CGI T-Rex believable)
Jason Ricci Yes. I definitely don’t watch it and think “ew the graphics have aged terribly!” Instead I think “damn this still looks great!” That’s how you know it’s an artistic masterpiece. Nobody looks at da Vinci’s work and scoffs at how rudimentary it looks. Jurassic Park is a cinematic masterpiece.
It also helps that the CGI artists seemed to have a grasp on the limitations of CGI at the time. One of the interesting things about photorealism in CGI is that it often relies on the smaller details that the audience isn't consciously paying attention to (hence why Thanos looks so convincing in the Infinity War movies; the animators actually went through the effort of making his skin pores stretch) but because we're talking about a movie released in the mid 90s there wasn't much the CGI artists could do to increase the details of the dinosaurs so instead they used some rather crafty smoke and mirror techniques; sometimes they would have the dinosaurs rendered at a distance where the audience couldn't possibly perceive any of the missing details and sometimes they would use shadows in scenes with low lighting to conceal the areas we'd most likely expect to find the finer details (this technique was used during the T-Rex scene with the jeep which is why it looks so insanely real). On top of they also used animatronic dinosaurs for some of the close up shots. The whole trick with shadows concealing missing details is something that seems to pop up in modern video games and is the reason why you might notice things starting to look more realistic during moments of low light such as late evening to early morning times in open areas or inside low lit buildings and caves.
This trick with shadows also happens a lot in Mangakas. For example, in Berserk by Kentarou Miura (Which have a fantastic art) you can noticed how some details just dont exist in a scene. They're a hidden by shadowing tricks. Even Renasseince's masterpieces sometimes doesnt really are detailed. We see beautiful trees in many paintings that seem more real than the real life, but in the end, none of the leaves where painted in detail, the artist just struck the canvas with the brush. Those visuals tricks to add "detail" without actually having it are being made for centuries. Just awesome.
@@Heaview Japan has made an art form out of tricking your eye into thinking it sees more than is there... take how most anime has a frame rate of, like, 5 fps, but they get away with it by using lingering shots of characters in the kinds of over-exaggerated dynamic poses you usually get with print comics.
And nowadays it's all dark scenes, lots of fast jump cuts and the only light source being muzzle flash. Sure it helps with concealment, but goes so far that not only the (unconsciously small) details are masked, but the entirety of the effect is gone.
Came here to say this, early CGI was so hamstrung directors had to think creatively how to solve it's short comings (shadows on wall, a hand or tail visible at a time, shooting only the eyes of the dinos), all of which incidentally created SUSPENSE. Compare this to modern day where it's no longer a technological issue to show a wide shot of a very realistic dinosaur from head to toe...directors take this new freedom like a kid playing with Hot Wheels, and start making the dinosaurs behave very unrealistically, zapping all suspense.
Yeah not many other directors can compete. Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan is both on my top movies of all time list. And then when you add Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark into the mix, not to mention E.T., Close Encounters of the third kind and Jurassic Park. We are indeed talking about one of the greatest directors that ever lived.
A fantastic analysis of the Mastery of Steven Spielberg. I still quote him when I'm talking to my production Apprentice about attention to detail. Spielberg said "people may not notice the attention to detail you put in a film, but they notice when it's not there." side note, one of the Apprentice I trained in 3D animation went on to work at ILM on Jurassic Park.
@@Dr.TJ_Eckleburg Explaisn why the current generation of writers is so garbage... Thanks god my prefered authors will ever be there, Vance, Zelasny, Tolkien, heck, even Eddings are a thousand of times better than the majority of the ones today.
Another aspect that contributes heavily to the horror of Jurassic Park is seeing adults scared. That used to really affect me as a kid when I watched this movie. The movie shows how afraid and apprehensive even the adults are of the dinosaurs before leaving the children to deal with the dinosaurs on their own in the two pinnacle scenes of the movie.
Broken Wave I think a lot of it has to do with the context in which the adults express their fear and cope with it. All the adult characters in this movie have different perspectives on John Hammond’s ambitions. Their emotions and reactions become as integral to the plot as they do to the individual story lines. Adults being scared isn’t new, yes. But I find too often that a character’s fear is almost...generic. Of course a character should be afraid of a serial killer chasing them in the dark. But there’s a difference between a lot of movies with a similar scenario and the last 15 minutes of “Silence of the Lambs”. It’s like it means more when Clarice is afraid. I think Alan Grant’s fear is so palpable because he is the character who best understands the delicate balance of chaos (Ian Malcom) and control (John Hammond). He knows everyone on the island is way out of their depth. The only way they’re going to survive is if they assume death is waiting at every turn.
That’s not it. The original had plenty of humour as well. Ian Malcolm was a comic relief character but he was hilarious. The new movies just don’t have as much passion and soul put into them.
@@Rook101 id say there's just as much humour in the new films as much as the old films. It's just that the original was much funnier. And the series was never really a "horror" series despite the fact that it had some tense moments
@@daddychill7863 Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Superman, E.T., Harry Potter, Schindler's List, Hook, Home Alone, The Olympics theme song. Are you telling me the man who made all these iconic scores is overrated? The Imperial March is one of the best villain songs ever.
I wonder why these newer directors are making movies with such poor camera work, haven't they studied cinema? ...Or watched an educational RUclips video at the very least??
Time and budget... Also. Even though I'm convinced some of them are very talented. Studying music wont turn you into a Beethoven or Peter Gabriel. Same goes for movie directing.
@@trentsc4929 Back in Spielberg's day rejecting god was a new thing, so maybe that extra rebelliousness and having to fight for the truth added something to the times. Now a days, we're complacent and are lazily letting religion seep back in. Time to rebel again!
I have always been impressed by the realism of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Even now, after all these years, it seems like the Jurassic Park movie with the best graphics and effects.
Gorilla Jones Why you call this the best? Why you say that? The Next GUI windows menu, the animations, Maya scripts, the mel rendering now just old... The frame??? This RUclips guy, no skills, not understanding, just mumbling....Cheap RUclips levels......
It wasn't the best CGI by a long shot, they were just aware of its limitations and the practical effects for the close ups married perfectly with the CGI for the long shots, the later movies lean more heavily on CGI and that means its limitations are far more apparent, but when you see the dino's in the daytime thats when the CGI really shows its age.
One thing I didn't like about the World movies is how literally every second of the movie has music playing. I liked how the original didn't used any to build suspense
Unfortunately Spielberg has now fully embraced cgi to the extent he doesn't seem to bother with stunts or practical effects at all. Such a shame the way he has discarded his talent.
@@ChefofWar33 He was splendid in Event Horizon, especially in some of the cut scenes. The result was that otherwise dickish and stupid behavior (like trying to write off uncomfortable facts as "eh, well, maybe you're just hysterical") made sense, and even once he turned really bad, I still couldn't help but feel for him.
I think he always is (okay, with one exception being the one-CGI-effect-per-minute Merlin thing - enjoy the irony). I've seen a lot of his movies and good guy or bad guy, he always draws me in.
That goes to show how important the human element brought by each director is. Regardless of how advanced the technology is, it's useless if you don't know how to use it well.
Even if it gets dissed by critics, I love Hook. I grew up watching it, and it still holds up as a lovely film. Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins are just gold.
@Frank Furter Oh Hell yeah, man. Every one a classic. (Except that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull disaster. Let's just go ahead and forget that one ever happened.) Not even one single stinker... 😜
When a movie made in the 90s feels like it could have been made in the current year (save for the clothing), this is also how you know its a Masterpiece.
Just movie is bad. It has no characters and all is plot to show The Chaos Theory which movie never properly did. JP2 TLW was way better because there actually happen things which books always hinted that dinos reach mainland.
@@michaelstark8720 What? Just movie is bad? Has no Characters? Plot was simply to show Chaos theory listen bud, we can't take your opinion seriously if you're intellectual capacity is in the lower percentages. If you didn't enjoy it then hey, all the power to ya but the majority did so it can be said that it was an excellent film.
More importantly, when a movie from the 90s LOOKS far better than most of todays movies you know it's a Masterpiece, including much better and more realistic looking special effects, which is NOT something I ever thought would be the case 20 years ago!
This makes a person appreciate the thought and genius that goes into making something the caliber of Jurassic Park. This is one of the few effects-heavy movies that transcends time, and will continue to look great for many years, if not forever.
This movie blew my mind when it came out. It was like the beginning of a new era of filmmaking with this. The Matrix? Pretty bad CGI, very obvious in parts.
I watched JP on cable a few months ago. It's amazing how well it has held up over time. It's one of those "nearly perfect" films that never needs to be remade. So I'm sure it'll be remade.
Justice Warrior Thank you for your point! I’ve been watching many RUclips videos on Alien before the “suggestions” dropped this video in the mix. Anyway, the Alien video commentaries & documentaries reminded me why I’ve loved Alien all these years. And, why I prefer the original over the sequels. I find it’s the same thing with Jurassic Park, especially after watching this video. I was curious to read people’s thoughts in the Comments, and your comment was PERFECT for what I’ve been feeling. Good on ya!
@@lastoutlaw3882 CGI has been looking kinda shitty lately. It's not the technology, it's that CGI artists don't have a lot time to fully complete their work. Black Panther fight sequence towards the end of the movie is a perfect example.
Jurassic Park is a phenomenal film because it excels in all the important qualities of a superb film: - Cinematography, - Writing, - Acting, - Production, - Score, Bonus: A non-cynical ending. Having a non-cynical ending allows the film to be re-watchable over and over again because the viewer knows that it will have a "good" ending. A cynical ending, while it usually is more powerful, keeps the viewer from wanting to revisit the film again.
Great comment, but I think it's cynical itself to think that folks rewatch movies on an axis of whether or not they find the movie cynical by the end. A better word might be "resolved". Jurassic Park, to me, ends with so many burning questions about the dangers of technology, considering all the carnage the dinos left behind, but because our protagonists live and interrogate those questions by the end, I find the pressing gaps to be resolved. I just say this because I've seen many a movie with a tangibly "good" endings go entirely unresolved and deeply uninterrogated. And I can think of nothing more cynical than that.
Another factor I think plays into this is that culturally, these sort of visuals were so much rarer back in the 90's. It wasn't like we could see that sort of technical innovation just anywhere as a kid. Going from a 16 bit platform game to seeing life-like dinosaurs is much more awe-inspiring than making the same jump from a modern game in 4K
Not just "rare". There simply had never been anything like it. "The dinosaurs actually look real" was THE big selling point. People simply wanted to see the dinosaurs. Titanic and Independence Day were also like that. After that there really hasn't been movies where the visuals and spectacle alone have made a movie a cultural event. Avatar maybe.
Regarding the ending phrase of the essay. Spielberg's tale about filming Jaws and the animatronic not working a lot of the time so he had to spend that time filming water and nothing else and trying to see how he could make the images feel ominous, scary etc is my alltime favourite insight into how the cinematic image works. Genious.
@@southpark645 I'll try to dig up the source but it was a very long time ago... It's either a DVD commentary or a print article I happened to read. Possibly the commentary for David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, because it could have been an analogy with the way David Lean shot sand and desert landscapes and made the meaningful with entirely visual means.
It is ironic that the malfunctioning shark animatronic actually taught Spielberg one of his most valuable techniques. Think about it. His initial plan was to show the shark as often as possible. I think most can agree that Jaws wouldn't have been nearly as frightening.
As Uber driver, two girls fr college in Berkeley talk. It is about a boyfriend who flirted with a different girl. The "victim", who's boyfriend dare to talk to not her then ask "How should I feel"? Back to Jurassic park: How should you feel about the sequel? Now you know.
I realized this with the latest version. We don't really feel the dimensions of the dinosaurs in the new one. The volcano scene needed wvweybpdy to look extremely tiny compared to the terrain.
Movies really were better in the 80's-90's. Maybe that's just nostalgia talking, but I feel like when I watch them they have a greater sense of "awe", there was more craft and people focused more on the foundations and essentials. Good framing, the correct lens combinations, natural lighting, natural editing with smooth transitions meant to convey feeling. Today everything is just "throw more money into fixing that in post, and CGI the crap out of everything". I miss the craft of filmmaking.
I would go so far to say that some in the 00s also had that, but it was less common. Let's not forget that the LOTR movies were mostly done in 99/00 with some minor shots up until 04. There is much CGI in them, but also lots of things done physically. And they still look amazing.
@@HappyBeezerStudios The LOTR movies are some of the best ever made, so that's true. But movies from the last 10 years (generally speaking) have been surprisingly terrible, almost as if Hollywood is out of good ideas. I suspect the onslaught of super hero movies didn't help any.
@@JoshChristiane One example of why JP holds on a little better then LOTR dispite it being older is Gollum, great character but the CGI looks dated and out of place.
Cinematography is so often overlooked, it's what can make you love a movie without even realizing it!! I didn't know about the aspect ratios, this was very informative!
@@jaquigreenlees For gamers it wouldn´t make much sense to have taller monitors because they´d mostly just display more sky where nothing is happening. Having a wide monitor grants a better view of the general area and even of the map. I´d also suspect manufacturers to be reluctant to increase the height steadily because it´s being used to categorize resolutions (1080p, 1440p etc.) which customers have been accustomed to. They´d wash out their discrete price levels and complicate the manufacturing process. Further, most applications don´t do too well with "in-between" resolutions because they´re not programmed responsively enough.
Geno52 exactly. I remember seeing an ad for Jurassic Park in People Magazine. It was the gate backlit at dusk with the the Tagline “June 11th. The Park is open...” That’s all. That’s all they gave the public to go on.
@@BoyBlunder66 empire strikes back went like 2 months overschedule and way over budget. imagine if empire was made now.' Also in the making The Lost World Spielberg mentioned it took twice as long to do each "Jurassic" as it did to film a normal comedy or drama.
To me, the two greatest examples of directing are Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings. Both are exquisite, with nearly perfect angles, panning, etc. - I honestly think every film student should study Jurassic Park as a mandatory part of their education. It oozes with intelligent framing and overall perfection. Sometimes, the angles are so good, I find myself appreciating them rather than actually watching the movie... lol
I watched this when i was five on vhs, my mom told me i would have nightmares. Afterwards I told her that I need Jurassic Park merch(ok not rly I didn't know merchandise was a thing cuz I was 5)
The Lost World gets a bad rap. It has some amazing sequences in it, particularly the T-Rex attack on the cliff. It just builds and builds and Poor Eddie is trying so hard to be the hero and when he gets ripped in half it's brutal, both visually and emotionally. I think the cliff sequnce is my favorite in the entire series.
I don't think any of the Jurassic Park sequels are actually bad movies I think they just get a bad rap because they'll always get compared to the first which is legitimately one of the greatest films ever made. It's just a tough act to follow.
Shad Miles There's truth to that. With a film like the original "Jurassic Park," the question becomes 'HOW exactly do you follow up something like that?' Spielberg, Joe Johnston, Colin Trevorrow, and J.A. Bayona have all tried to answer that question in their own unique ways. Whether or not they succeeded I say all boils down to *who* is watching the sequels.
Everything in the new movies are bad. Acting, special effects, plot. It's like the new movies are written by 12 year olds. I like the second movie tho, that one was entertaining.
@@alpacawithouthat987 I liked some of the world building aspects, but the dialogue was terrible, the character motivation sometimes seemed forced and the special effects didn't age nearly as well as the original series which is doing really well for how old it is now.
Just movie is bad. It has no characters really and all is plot to show The Chaos Theory which movie never properly did. JP2 TLW was way better because there actually happen things which books always hinted that dinos reach mainland.
@@guidorussoheck2100 No. If you have the money to buy and sell property, then you have the money to pay stamp duty. It's like Bali Bogans who spend $2000 a head on flights and accom, then whine and cry when their hospital bill is $10,000, because they "couldn't afford $150 for travel insurance" Life is not a free ride. If you want all the benefits of living in Victoria, including all the benefits of this massive infrastructure spend, you must pay for it. And I don't know how many people are buying and selling houses more than 1 or 2 times in a life. If you are doing it more often than that, then you are doing life wrong.
There is better CGI today but the way this movie is shot you don't really pay attention to those details. I think the blend of animatronics and CGI makes the film more realistic compared to today's films.
thats what made it so great, there are alot of animatronic to CGI wipes, but they are masked by other objects that our minds dont see it and think its still animatronic.
What surprised me to learn was that when the T-Rex had it’s foot on the Ford Explorer.. that Explorer was a CG model, not a physical rig! Flawless transition! Spaz Williams, you mad genius!
The only scene where I notice "bad" CGI is the brontosaurus shot. It's the first dinosaur you see and it actually sets a low bar. The Rex breakout scene is incredible though. Sure thr darkness helps mask the CGI, but it's also raining and yet it's still flawless.
The best part of Jurassic Park for me was the look, scenery, and design of it. The visitor center for example was something that stayed with me months after I watched it because of how it looked. The design and Scenery was something that I had never seen before so it really interested me. While the new sequels don’t have a new environment I feel, it mainly focuses on the action. Jurassic park stuck with something that matched the feel of the Jurassic age with the style of the building. Jurassic World had these new modern type building that didn’t go well in my opinion with dinosaurs and the age they lived in. I think the worst thing about the sequels is there design, Yes dinosaurs destroying building with a fight is cool but Jurassic Park didn’t need it to be good which is one of the best things about it. Ok what I’m trying to say is the design and scenery helped Jurassic park along with the dinosaurs and likeable characters. While Jurassic world relies to heavily on the dinosaurs and action. A movie for me at least needs to have separate factors that combine to make it great which Jurassic park did. Jurassic World only has two factors dinosaurs and action that it relies on which makes the movie meh. Oh and another thing that makes Jurassic park better is the sound affects but I feel I have described enough reasons already. Edit: sorry for rant Jurassic park is really good and I wanted to let people know why I think it’s good :)
Loved your comment. In fact, the font they used for Title Introduction as well as within Jurassic Park such as on sign post was so eerily unique that it still continues to make me nervous. The movie is six Sigma of movie making
I went to see the first Jurassic park at the cinema when it came out. I was around 14 or so I think. It was simply fantastic! It was thrilling, scary, intense, jaw dropping. IT WAS THE FIRST PROPER DINOSAUR FILM THAT WAS REALISTIC!!! So much so that a kid literally ran out of the cinema in tears because he was scared. Man what a good film!
I may have been that kid! I watched it when I was 4 years old and right when the T-Rex. Saw that guy on the toilet. I knew that he was going to get eaten and I cried and literally ran outa the theater with my mom lol.. scariest thing I had ever seen. To see someone so vulnerable to something so scary. It did NOT go well with me lol
You kids were weak asf. My parents made me and my brother watch the scariest R-Rated movies at the time back in the early, mid, to late 80's. We sat there and watched it & stfu about it no matter how scary it was.
i think the lost world nailed it as a sequel, is not a bad movie by itself either, it has goofy moments and may not live up to the original, but still an enjoyable movie to watch... the others on the other hand.... painful to watch
@@CamJames and it a sequel that works well because it kept the same formula as the original: intro with a dino attack, then setting the reason to go to thr island, thr awe moment, the t rex attack in the storm, a side dino eats a bad guy, the raptors attack, and the t rex kills the bad guy in the end
I went to the cinema as a 14 year old to watch this back in the day and it was, for me, when cinema had you in awe. I wish kids today could experience cinema like it used to be
I was 8, my brother was 5 and my Dad had to take him out of the cinema about half way though. I had nightmares for weeks imagining a velociraptor was about to come into my bedroom. It is the only film that really scared me.
Films like that pioneered cg effects. And they used when needed. And sadly, the promise of "no limits to your imagination" turned into "no limits to your laziness" Cg today vs cg back then feels like the first guy in the 19th century who realized his grandma cake recipe could be produced en masse with machines, and made them with less soul and passion than his grandma
Well that and the fact the original artists at ILM and the like got their start in cinematography and stop-motion. Meaning they had to know things like lighting which are super important toward creating a realistic and effective....effect. Now animators and modelers don't know as much about that so their effects look more out of place. Combine that with audiences being used to the effects now and the sheer saturation of effects in films and it is a recipe for bleh. Plus it is just cheaper overall AND easier like you said.
Good cgi can be done, its just usually done so last minute because producers demanded something to be changed, so animators get weeks or days instead of months to do it
@@scottb3034 this is the case with pretty much any craft. when you start out as an apprentice metal worker, you'll be filing blocks of metal straight with your hands for a few months before you're allowed to even touch a machine, we learn how to do simple maths in our heads before we're allowed to use calculators in schools and only after we get used to those can we work with an actual computer to do even more complex calculations with excel and stuff like that. similarly i'd say visual effects artists should be working with a practical effects team for at least half a year before they're even allowed to touch a computer, you're not going to get a feel for how things look under natural light in a cubicle.
@@erikschwartz1214 CGI fits more for backgrounds. Not "living things". When they try to make characters in CGI, it lacks soul. Compare Lord of the Rings trilogy with the Hobbit. Hobbit is also pure shit
SightSeer Ikr! That whole sequence where they are caught in the cars with the T-Rex, actually freaked me out! (Starting with that water rippling in that cup! Oh, sh#&!) and I don't get scared easily in films! I didn't really feel any of that with any of the sequels. Spielberg is truly one of a kind.
I have rewatched this video so many times as an architect for references in creating scale and feeling in my renderings... A brilliantly swift and concise master class.
Gareth Edwards is great at conveying scale in the 2.39 aspect ratio (Godzilla 2014) (Rogue One 2016) Jordan Vogt-Roberts also did a good job in (Kong: Skull Island 2017)
@@SaurianStudios1207 i am, at the very least, going to give Fallen Kingdom points for effort. it's clear that they where trying to go places, and they did end up doing that.
@@SaurianStudios1207 I am not a fan at all. The only scene out of either movies that I actually enjoyed was the opening of fallen kingdom. Those first 10 minutes were incredible. That being said I wont knock anyone who likes them. I am glad someone does.
As a more casual moviegoer, I seem to only acknowledge cinematography as "good" when I see more dynamic and extreme uses of camera angles and framing. While I always felt that Jurassic Park was a standout film, I couldn't pinpoint why I felt that way about it, besides the clever writing and purposeful use of practical effects. I really appreciate this video because you explain how meaningful cinematography doesn't always have to be recognized on a conscience level by the audience to make an impact; there are plenty of subtle ways to leave an impression too. This gave me a new perspective to view movies with- thank you, and keep up the good work!
Arguably the greatest film of all time. Between the brilliant directing and acting, you’re in a constant state of fear and anxiety as if you’re right there with the characters. There’s also natural humor unlike the forced humor you see in almost every movie today no matter the genre.
Yep. Take the Marvel movies: Tony Stark should really be the only Avenger cracking jokes nonstop - a few from others here and there is all you need; for this, look at Age of Ultron. In the newer installments, however, EVERYONE is a quippy, witty, jokey genius that exposits campy jokes one after another and it just gets annoying.
@@hanburgundy4317 Actually Peter Parker is the quipper. Even moreso than Stark. Stark was an A-Hole and an alcoholic in the comics. the a-hole behavior and the delivery by Downey is what makes him funny I guess. But he isn't what I would call a jokester. That's Peter who does that as a mechanism to cope with stress.
@@scottb3034 Well obviously, but Spider-Man is anew addition to the MCU - as far as the main cast goes, Tony has been "the funny one" and should generally be the primary figure filling that role instead of the entire cast.
@@hanburgundy4317 yeah true. At least the one intentionally funny one. Thor's manner of speaking can be funny unintentionally. But otherwise cap, Hawkeye, black widow and hulk weren't jokesters for sure.
Honestly I would *love* to see a breakdown like this comparing "Conan the Barbarian" 1982 vs 2011, because I've never really been able to articulate why the earlier one is just more "cinematic" while the new one feels like a television movie. I've watched them both back to back to try to understand why I find the first one so much more compelling and I've never been able to put my finger on it.
Because movies (and everything else) focuses on quick money grabs rather than art or substance. Spielberg made movies cause he enjoyed them and was good at it. The money was just a means to continue doing it. No one cares about the journey anymore, or the skill, it's all bottom line.
Watching (well-made) video like this about how amazing movies were back in the day 1) make me angry, and 2) prove that perhaps more often than not, nostalgia *isn't* just fond memories through rose0colored glasses. Some things were actually done much better before cgi and corporate cinematic universe.
Corporations have been around for a while, but we always seem to go through phases where their behaviour gets more and more out of hand, for various cultural, legal and technical reasons. The first major issues for Film was the studio system where studios both produced the content and owned the places the films were shown. This turned out to be pretty bad for film-goers. Meanwhile video streaming services are headed down the exact same trajectory, suggesting that overall, we haven't learnt a thing. Films have become all about glitzy shallow spectacle to get as many people as possible to watch. Budgets have skyrocketed, but the actual storytelling hasn't improved, and in many cases has degenerated. Consider that even taking into account inflation, something like Back to the Future is now in the realms of being a low budget film, which shows how out of hand things are getting. Film isn't the only industry suffering - the internet is ruining gaming through a combination of abusing the fact that games can be patched at any time (before 2000 or so patching a PC game was a big ordeal that while possible was generally avoided, and patching a console game was basically impossible short of re-releasing the game) Meanwhile: Microtransactions, Day 1 DLC, Gambling mechanics for DLC content, game design deliberately broken to make the microtransactions more appealing, content that used to be included in the base game now segmented off as DLC... Adding lootboxes after the fact several weeks down the road to mess up reviewers... Always online DRM making it possible that in some cases you can't even play the game you paid for... Oh, and like film, ballooning budgets spent primarily on fluff that makes the game 'prettier' and 'bigger' but doesn't really do much to make it a better game... Seems both industries are trying to see how far they can push things before people have just had enough. (though games more so than film - unless you count what's going on with video streaming services...) Give them an inch and they'll take a mile... And every time they get people used to their latest form of scummy behaviour, they try and lower the bar even further, and get people used to even more exploitative stuff...
CGI isn't the problem, its the misuse of it. Too often modern films use CGI where practical effects would have the best impact. LOTR for example used CGI for Gollum but practical makeup effects for the orcs and uruk-hai, and it looked amazing. The Hobbit movies on the other hand used CGI for all monsters, and that aspect of it suffered because of it. The White Orc just looked terrible imo.
Jurassic Park had a lot of CGI in it as well. CGI is just a tool. And like any tool, it can be used to great effect, and it can be poorly used as well.
CGI is not the problem. But nowadays most of the blockbusters are brainless cash machines with only action sequences running on a two lines script. Sad. Fortunately there are still some directors who knows how to make good movies.
I’ve never got over the inconsistency in that scene. The TRex walks through the fence, then 10 minutes later, it becomes a 60’ vertical drop and a car is thrown over it. But the scene is so amazing I’m willing to overlook and enjoy.
Excellent explanations. Love the simple graphics used to illustrate key comparisons. One can rewatch the original Brachiosaurus reveal scene everyday and still never get the sheer euphoric genius of it. You described something indescribable very well.
In the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin there's a Brachiosaurus skeleton (well, Giraffatitan, but that's nitpicking). I swear the "welcome to jurassic park" theme sounded in my head as I was trying to see the skull of that behemoth I have no idea how many metres up in the ceiling. It's quite an experience, 10/10 would go to Berlin again just to see my bony friend.
Im tired of super wide shots, I like this aspec ratio so much better!!! also subbed, very good analysis!
5 лет назад+22
Different aspect ratios fit different films better. I absolutely LOVE widescreen for most westerns and sci-fi, where the surroundings are just as important as the actors. The problem with widescreen today is that many modern directors/cinematographers don't know how to properly use the format.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m gonna be that guy.
Correct: Brachiosaurus “brah-kee-oh-saw-rus”
Incorrect: Bronchiosaurus “bron-kee-oh-saw-rus”
As in: “That Brachiosaurus does not have bronchitis.”
I did an oopsie D:
tbh I swore I checked the spelling/pronunciation when I wrote this script 2 months ago, but I guess a mistake was made at some point. C'est la vie.
I was gonna say the same thing. XD
Thank you! Came to the comments to mention that bronkyosaurus isn't a dinosaur😂
Archie WahWah well, okay, if we’re going there...
The dinosaur in Jurassic Park is unquestionably a Brachiosaurus.
I have not watched the World movies beyond the beginning of the first one, because I could tell pretty quickly that I hated it. However, from the clip shown here it is difficult to tell if it is a Brachiosaurus or an Apatosaurus.*
*Brontosaurus as a distinct genus of dinosaur may or may not actually exist. The consensus for almost 100 years was that they were the same genus, and Apatosaurus was named first. However, there was a paper in 2015 that suggested they may actually be separate genera. There is still some debate in the paleontology community as far as I’m aware. Personally, I’d stick with Apatosaurus until there is wider agreement.
Several internet sources seem to suggest that both Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus appear in Fallen Kingdom, so make of that what you will.
Yeah, and while we are at it, it's "Di-PLOD-icus" not "Dip-LO-DOH-CUS". (Takes a shot and slams down glass)
Some water movement in a couple of plastic cups produces more emotion that the entirety of the las 4 films...
That was done with a guitar string
JBird117 I believe it was a big bass piano string, but same difference.
And filming human reactions to first seeing the dinos rather than just show the dinos.
Last 2*
I assume you mean subtle emotion and not the contrived character abuse of the last two, especially that sadistic brachiosaurus volcano scene.
Scale, framing but also SOUND. The sound engineering is so good.
Yeah the T-Rex roar sound is the best
Yep before you see the dinosaurs you hear them. especially in the cinema with good speakers. Something BIG is coming.
The acting in the first one is pretty solid too. Those kids sold that kitchen/raptor scene. Such a tense and scary moment!
@@thn4296 the T-rex steps are frightening
Dean Drabin did the ADR. He's an old Foley guy. I watched the T Rex introduction scene on his couch in front of his $40,000 sound system. I pointed out several mistakes to his delight. Then we watched the chain room scene from Alien with HIS Foley work. It was absolutely flawless.
Spielberg put the Camera in a position that during an interaction between a dinosaur/human the Viewer gets the impression that the Viewer itself is interacting/threatened by the dinosaur. In the newer Movies the Camera is put into a position that the Viewer looks from a third position (far away at a safe place) towards a dinosaur/human-interaction. Practically removing the Viewer from being "inside the movie" 🤔
Jaws is another example of Spielberg brilliant work
Imagine if Hollywood had access to RUclips, could watch these breakdowns and comments and then "fix" everything they are doing wrong in a matter of weeks.
@@ZReviews oh dont believe they think you're brain works or can outsmart THEM. OH no, sit down little guy on your keyboard and let us do the thinking...
U almost had me there with ur fly on ur profile pic
@@iloveblondy nope. The problem is that the shit movies still give them tons of money (without the effort necessary to produce a good movie). So why bother?
Consumers are to blame.
I still remember seeing the Brachiosaurus scene for the first time when I was a kid. I couldn’t believe it, I really thought they brought them back to life just to make this film
I got so scared from this movie that when my mom would take us to target to buy school supplies, i literally be scared to be around notebooks w Jurassic Park movie scenes on the cover lol
I used to think the Triceratops was real, too.
Haha I thought the same thing.
My sister braught the movie, on VHS for sure, 😃🤓 from the library in 1997 and I was 7 and I watched it and blew me away
No way! Me too. Seriously, at Target as well.
The first Jurassic Park film was way way way ahead of it's time... !!
its just one of these events at cinema - like Jaws was, and Exorcist - and i dont think that size of event will happen again. I personally think it was the appearence of multiplex cinema - as it was fairly recent then - added with the master - Spielberg + and of course = use of cgi/animatronics - all packaged - into - somethign that had never been seen before. Our expectations were never set that high - and ever since - we have been like heroin chasers - chasing that dragon of Post Jurassic Park hit. But age too - you move on. For me JP - if it is the most satisfying film i ever saw - maybe, but where do i put Jaws, or Back to the Future, or Castaway, or American Beauty? Its one of the hardest things to list as most overall enjoyable - but it might be. Its certainly had impact and thats nearly half my life since watching it for first time.
More that that, its actually BETTER, we've scaled back in movies today. We get little tiny cookie cutter films now that show WAY to many angles of the same scene lol
or cinema has regressed
its *
@@itskittyme honey that was an auto correct typo..
Spielberg was also wise enough to obscure allot of the CGI dinos in shadow and rain and close up dino shots were often done with practical effects .
And of course it helps that Rexxy was a real animatronic that was actually that scale so the CGI became less noticeable when Spielberg switched scenes.
Ya I always noticed how much better the rex looks in the rain than when its dry.
I think also it had something to do with the fact that the CG T-Rex had to match up with the AA T-Rex. Spielberg says in the making of he only wanted audiences to say 'That's a dinosaur'
If you look around RUclips there are videos by Stan Winston studios that go into this, the main thing I learned was that the decision to film the T Rex encounter in the rain was a late one and this giant mechanical monster wasn’t made to withstand the changes in weight of being rain soaked, which made it tricky to control, so bear that in mind as it swings by actors heads.
Lumibear If I’m not mistaken, originally they were going to use the CGI Rex, but couldn’t get it to look right to his satisfaction, so they used the animatronic Rex, and yes that shot took extra work for the aforementioned issue, but it paid off
"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"
Best sight gag EVER!!!
I saw this movie in the theater back in 1993. Disappointingly, I was the only one to laugh out loud at it. I'm not sure if everyone else missed it or didn't think it was as clever as I did.
@@CowetaGaming
That's the problem with humor. If you spell it out, it's not funny anymore. If you don't, nobody gets it. LOL!
And it later turned into one of the two best movie reference jokes ever, that incidentally both happen in Toy Story 2 ! (I think you know the other one ;) )
@tabala jalah
I would assume it's, "I AM your father" "NOOOOOoooooooo!"
Even though Darth Vader never actually said that
Hahaha I literally think of this scene every time I read that on car mirrors in real life
New films: The characters look in danger. Spielberg films: I’m no safe in my theater seat. That’s the difference. Spielberg made it real to us watching. The impact in the water, the steam on the glass from raptor nose. It felt real. Still the best
SO true. I stopped watching the sequels at least a dozen years ago because I was annoyed by the violence and body count. The original, on the other hand, made me afraid to let the dog out after dark, and I’ve rewatched it a couple of times since because it was good! (Tho to be a bit more fair in my comparison, I was about 14 when I saw the original on VHS, and I didn’t usually watch scary movies; I was almost 30 and in full control of the remote when I saw the #3 and gave up on them.)
The best thing about Jurassic Park is that even 26 years later I can still learn things from and about Jurassic Park. Goddamn I love this movie.
Totally agree
Yep! Got an event greater appreciation for it now!
I hope you didn’t learn too much from the movie because it’s facts when it comes to dinosaurs is incredibly wrong and 242 other people agree with you 😂 oh boy
Tyler Dickey like what?
@@tylerallenwade Talking about BTS stuff here, not scientific facts. It's a SciFiFantasyHorrorMovie, not National Geographic FCOL... some people...
The Jurassic World films also abuse CGI camera movement with CGI set pieces which give that uncanny video game cutscene look.
YES!!! My friend asked me why I hate CGI and I really thought about that question for ages. Until I realized that the specific cases where I hate CGI are all the ones where the camera moves in ways that could only be achieved via CGI. For example: Almost every scene in a Transformers movie. An exception would be The Matrix and that is because the feeling of CGI fits with the in-movie world.
When the camera follows the rules of a real-life camera then I usually have no problem with CGI. For example: Cloverfield.
I told my friend this answer after a few days and he said "Man, you really think too much when you are watching a movie. No wonder you don't enjoy most films!"
I tried to explain that I wasn't aware of why I wasn't enjoying the films until I really thought about it later but he didn't get it.
@@MandleRoss
I get that too and i'm usually told " it's just a film"
It's not just a film, they just don't see anything unless they are shown it specifically. Movies are made for the people who don't ask questions.
Edited for auto correct misspelling words.
Also, while the first Jurassic Park was made to be as scientifically accurate as was possible based on the science available (excepting a few necessary changes, IE the Dilophosaur was given a frill to make it stand out visually from the raptors) the sequels just didn't care. I mean in Jurassic World you have a pteronodon CARRYING A WOMAN THAT OUTWEIGHED IT BY 80 POUNDS.
@@MandleRoss oh god I hate those people who say "It's just a movie". Just because they are fine with living a mediocre life, they think nobody should ever want to feel elevated emotions beyond the casual "shock and awe" that all movies today seem to prioritize over anything else.
What if I wanted a nice painting, but it was only available as a print, should I just be satisfied with that too? No I don't want a print I want a real painting! And I don't want a mediocre run-off-the-mill Hollywood movie, I want an experience filled with passion and creativity, otherwise I could just as well watch any other movie on Netflix at home and save the money..
@@MandleRoss re-watch Transformers 1, it follows the law of camera even though its CGI. it is always kept at eye level or how high a human could really hold a camera
The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park felt like living creatures
Because they are animatronic and not cgi!!!
@@nderohan Not simply cg vs animatronic. JP paid closer attention to portraying the correct anatomy and simulating instinctive animalistic behaviour vs JW (which feel like actors following a tight script instead of animals reacting spontaneously). The cg Gallimimus herd in JP feels more like a group real animals than the same dinosaurs in JW.
@@Ozraptor4 Can't be done without a person like Stan Winston.
@@nderohan spoiler alert: they used both animatronic and cgi in the original Jurassic Park
Because some were! I learned that the Raptors in the kitchen were human size puppets and people were inside them like a costume.
The sequels changed from terror to thrills. The sequels feel like a heart-pounding roller coaster, but the original is more like standing face-to-face with a bear in the wild. You're not thrilled. You're *terrified.*
Right? And as much as I did enjoy Lost World, it was more thrills and less terror than the book version of it. Honestly, I think we'd another Spielberg take on JP and LW in an R-rated context to really show the true colors of the books: prehistoric animals acting for what they are, animals exploring their enviornment.
The first one also has this sense of powerlessness to it. That these creatures are dangerous and not under our control and that messing with them is bad news.
@@McGuire40695 The lost World Jurassic Park novel is overrated, it's really slow, the story actually begins in the pages 300-350, the rest it's boring, it's funny when it's more important how dinosaurs shit than develop a plot
Velociraptor scene
Thats because of the pacing. Horror movies work because they are slower, they want you to feel like there is an unavoidable threat you anticipate. Compare any scene in JW to the scene in the first movie where Ian is running away from a T. rex just walking behind him. You expect him to be eaten but you don't know exactly if he would. Which animals in real life are like, they are unpredictable.
Where as Jurassic World is now just a general action movie with explosions and over the top animation. It doesn't work the same because there isnt an unknown or a primal fear of being eaten by believable animal behaviors. The dinosaurs have identifiable personalities and don't really act like animals anymore. The also movie tells you now that the dinosaurs arent after the humans, that they just fight each other and there isnt any real danger to them anymore. The dinosaurs are just given unnatural moralities and fights only lean toward the defined "good" ones, and characters they know fans would get mad to see lose. Like when the T. rex stopped being a natural creature of no alliance, to a mascot in the JW movies protecting the humans.
Another reason I think the first one stands out compared to it sequels is its genre. The first movie is more of a horror/thriller adventure and was more character driven, compared to the bombastic action/adventure blockbusters of it sequels (especially Jurassic world and its sequel).
Fallen Kingdom was just the worst.
Yeah that's my biggest problem with Jurassic World and that garbage sequel. I really through that Fallen Kingdom will return to the horror aspect like the first one like i think Bayona said that it will be more graphic and suspenful.
HAHAHAHA
Nothing about Fallen Kingdom is threatning or scary, everything is just so fucking stupid in this movie it's painful to watch this is easily the worst jurassic park sequels i've seen at least for me. Jurassic World 3 will be a disaster.
@@alilshotofrhum The new movies can't be scary when are like art jokes every 5 minutes for children. I literally had nightmares as a kid after watching Jurassic Park now kids are probably not scared at all. Even the Pachycephalasaurus was scary in the Lost World, the Stigimolock in JWFK was like a loony tunes character.
@@DelcoAirsoft I was six when JP came out. During the scene where the dilophosaurus kills Nedry, I was shaking so bad my dad took me out to the theater lobby to get ice cream. After a few minutes I calmed down, and we went back in.
@@DelcoAirsoft I hate and also can't stand the mindset today where children can't handle any very serious topics or films. I was 8 Jurassic Park came out. I had nightmares a few times because of the raptors but I loved it.
Another cool detail: When the paleontologists discover amber near the start of the first film, you can hear deep orchestral voices in the background of the score. This sound returns whenever the humans make an advancement or realization, i.e. discovering amber, digging up bones, etc.
The sound appears again when the raptors break out and learn to open doors. Now they're making the advancements, and the humans are being forced into the corner. You just don't get these small but important details in the new movies.
Edit: People say it's called a leitmotif. Good to know.
I agree, I believe sound design is the biggest part of a movie
Like when Nedry slipped and there was a banana peel sound effect
@@sunlizard9593 oh yeah there was lol. Also when he opens the Barbosol can at lunch, his squeak laugh gets me every time.
@@sunlizard9593 I always wondered why that was there as a kid
@@0013bluejay than u just dont understand micheal haneke , know him and know sound effect is just subtle detail of the film
That shot of the T-Rex breaking free of the paddock is cinematic legend.
The sound of the cables snapping free was horrific.
I think I got a similar sound as a kid by rolling my Slinky around in a cardboard box, but it holds up.
@@robertmcginty4146 p
Still gives me chills.
"Where's the goat?"
Can't overstate the importance of the score too. Everything John Williams writes is gold, but I feel like it's especially impressive that his themes could make us feel a real emotional connection to a ridiculous dinosaur land. That ending theme really tugs at my heartstrings
His Harry Potter score was amazing as well like you said everything he writes is gold. He’s the only composer that can make me feel emotion
while the star wars theme (& cantina piece) were the first that made an impression on me as a kid -- jp1 was the first score i owned on cd when the movie came to theatres and i think it's even today one of his best works in his catalogue.
The score is legendary, immediately makes me nostalgic
i was in love with the score as a tot before i even knew what a score was. Completely took me away
Very recently watched Jurassic Park, First time for about 10 years. Was absolutely astounded by how the effects have not aged at all. The Trex and Jeep scene still looks about as "real" as any sequence I've seen in any film since
They did a really good job making the CGI look like the animatronic puppets
I'd have to disagree. The CGI is good for the time but it has definitely aged compared to what the T-rex looked like in Jurassic World.
@@GokuInstinct1 What? The trex in Jurassic World looks very bad in comparison
@@GokuInstinct1 The T-rex scenes work so well because it's much easier to capture it in the dark. Where it shows age is the first Brachiosaurus discovery scene where the resolution of the CGI does not really hold up, but that would have been harder to see back then unless you were in a theater. That said, it is still mighty impressive.
The effects themselves definitely didn't age that well, they were just used in ways that don't bring their shortcomings to your attention. A good example of this is during kitchen scene where a hand is propping up a raptor in the shot, you generally won't notice it unless you look carefully due to a combination of camera position, movement of the prop and lighting. If the same level of attention to detail, and planning were combined with modern technology the results would be even better especially in the daytime shots.
just notice how the iris of the animatronic at 5:42 reacts to the light, this makes it feel so alive
Yup, those details in the closeups really sell the shots and make it real.
Scary AF
This was in the trailer back in '92-'93 and was used to sell the film.
It sold it.
That attention to detail is astounding. No words
Although technically, in order to be exactly accurate, the pupil gradually grows/shrinks rather than immediately. The scene still gives me chills though, such an incredible detail!
One more thing to add: Color grading.
The original was so beautifully natural. Colors looked close to natural making the whole thing so much more immersive.
Virtually all new movies follow the moronic trend that can only be described as Hi Def HDR Sepia...
Also also, the first JP made a good job of not showing the dinos in full view very often. In the newer ones, they're in center frame all the time. There's no mystery or suspense, it's just action and then more action.
But talking about grating. JW had a hoooorrrriible bluewash throughout the movie.. just.. why
Counl'd agree more. JP! colors are so beautiful and fresh. Love the yellow and orange tones
@@spuilloh2637 But I must add here, that in Jurassic World: Fallen kingdom they used animatronics for the T-rex, Blue, and for the Indoraptor as well.
@@eliaspeter7689 And they all looked like shit. Including the cgi.
Yeah, even Spielberg's own sequel is a very drab affair in terms of its palette. And it all looks like it was shot in California rather than in Hawaii or any other tropical location. (Unsurprising, as this is exactly what happened.)
This perfectly highlights Spielberg's genius. He doesn't just concentrate on 1 or 2 tricks or skills, he knows how to encompass many brilliant aspects of cinematography, film and storytelling at the right moments throughout an entire movie.
He learned that from akira kurasawa
Also all his glaring weaknesses.
I'm from a small rural town and my grandma drove us 45 mins to the nearest town to watch this movie when I was 9. It was awesome and the best movie I had ever seen.
The music plays SUCH a huge role in these memorable films. The original scores are amazing.
John Willams is a legendary composer. He has played such a significant part in so many movies with his scores. I mean he's right up there with the actors and directors as far as what makes the movies iconic.
Awesome I was 8 :)
Bless your grandma.
Same here. There are very few movies that reach that level and stay with us no matter how much time has passed since you watched them.
Meanwhile I was 5 when the original hit theaters and for weeks I kept taking able how much I wanted to see the movie. My parents arranged baby sitter for my younger brothers and were going to take me to see it.. I was suddenly so scared of the dinosaurs I wouldn't go. So the left me with a baby sitter and saw the movie themselves 😂
Still is one of my favorite movies, and I watched the shit out of it on VHS, but apparently my young mind was not ready for them on the big screen lol
I know its cliche, but man I really miss physical and practical effects.
SAME.
Chairman Meow IT SHOULDN’T BE CLICHE!!! It was the best. The only recent movie I remember that used them a little was Oblivion (2014) after that, no other film.
I don't.
@@darkknight2864 Nolan doesn't typically make those types of movies though.
@@robertherrick6703 What? What about Dunkirk, or Tenet
To this day, the raptor kitchen scene still makes me on edge when I watch it. Spielberg, kudos to you
Considering what we normally use a kitchen for, it's crazy poetic ;)
Yeah seriously, that was absolutely terrifying. Meanwhile every scary movie out in the last 10 years I end up yawning at.
@@squidikka yea the typical crab crawl poltergeist or pale boy with hollow eyes is very annoying now. There is just something so instinctual about watching someone almost get eaten that puts you on edge.
#metoo
just by watching it here I got the chills; simply fantastic!!
This movie has not aged a single bit.
A true masterpiece.
Same with films like Indiana Jones.
@@purromemes7395 Definitely.
its aged quite a bit in terms of the scientific accuracy of its dinosaurs but outside of that it holds up very well even nearly 30 years later
@@monkeyofficial5159 dinosaurs didn’t have feathers and never will. It’s all speculation. They may as well could ha had human flesh and we would never know
@@purromemes7395 It's as much speculation as it is to say that tyrannosaurus had teeth. May perhaps you don't know of microraptor or archaeopteryx.
Also..........................: John Williams. This score give me goosbumbs even after all that years. His music is a master piece.
I always whistle the theme while out in nature
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS.
Atratvs the whole movie is a masterpiece, visual and sound effects, acting, story progression, writing, always my favorite movie ever
Half your billions should go to John Williams
And also instrumental (heh) in setting the atmosphere of a scene. Between Williams and Spielberg-- almost no one understands better when to let the music set the mood and when to back off and let the scene speak for itself.
I got chills hearing this: "Now, cinematography isn't about the beauty of an image or the dynamic nature of a shot. It really boils down to two things: what does the shot say, and how does it make you feel?" Such a truthful take.
Same wtf
It’s a great statement, the only problem with it as a wrap-up line is that it’s wrong. Direction is about what a shot says and how it makes you feel. Cinematography is about light and composition. The director decides what’s happening and the framing is at best a collaboration between the two.
Yeah, though cinematography, in its pure essence is lighting. Most cinematographers don't even run their own cameras. There's a Camera Operator's guild for that. And many directors chose final compositions. What the shot says and feels like is via all departments: directing, DP, production design, acting, etc., with the director being final arbiter. So I disagree with his statement, having worked on many film sets. And I kind of chuckled about the "cinematography isn't about the beauty of an image" bit. I've met many a cinematographer who are VERY concerned with the beauty of their images!
Except it is not true. The primary influence on what the shot says, and how it makes you feel, is the script (writer), the editing and, usually, the performances. Cinematography is lighting, framing and camera movement, all of which can and do aid the director to 'say' what he/she wants, and thereby hopefully create the feelings in the viewers intended. So much for chills...
Dean Cundey is a true boss of Cinematography!
thank you for helping me understand why i love the original film more then the later ones and that its not just nostalgia
Also do not forget the music! I swear, a tear comes to my eye every time I hear the ending melody :') So beautiful and emotional!
@@Li_Tobler music was so much better in older films, really gave films a great feel
@@musicmusic6595 same goes for video games as well...
@@Li_Tobler That's true
I wasn't expecting to be told that SS is actually a master of visual storytelling, and something something about how new movies only just rely on fancy CGI to tell stories.
Having watched the orignal again recently, I noticed that in the first "T-Rex with the Jeep in the rain" scene there is no music at first, and for a good while. I think this made it even more thrilling than adding some exciting score over the top, and made you focus more on the terror the people were experiencing.
This video is absolutely brilliant and 100% correct. Blocking, framing, and purposeful cinematography are overlooked way too often nowadays. This was like a masterclass
There were some very minor mistakes so more like 96% but it was still a great video.
@@seanriopel3132 the one that annoyed me the most is when he called the explorer a jeep
Dude, you're absolutely wrong. What makes a could movie is *overhead orbital shots* . Overhead orbital shots *at all times* . Because uhmmm... Cheap CGI makes it possible. Production said that.
@@Evan-cp6md Jeep is a car brand, "a jeep" is a type of car like a sedan or a convertible.
Someone send this video to Hollywood.
Also, knowing when NOT to use music and let the reality of the scene settle in/give the audience an emotional rest. Are you taking notes Michael Bay?...
Exactly!
YES! I couldn't stop laughing at the cacophony that "Transformers: The Last Knight" is. The story is like the ones I made with my friends...when we were 9. Visually everything tries to be big and in the end there is no contrast between what is supposed to be epic and the rest.
Back in the 90s everything was made with soul and passion..unlike now
This, this, ten million times this. Over-orchestration in movies drives me *up the wall*.
@@rock882josh7 Some movies are made with soul and passion still, but they are far less common. You don't realize it till you watch some random old movie that wasn't meant to be a drama and it's actually pretty good, and not rushed, and well acted etc...
Dumb and Dumber is fantastic cuz it doesn't rush and you can enjoy the ridiculousness that just happened lol
For Spielberg, the dinosaurs were just props to sell the human drama. For modern directors the dinosaurs are all they've got.
Best point about the difference between old style filmmakers (Spielberg, Cameron, John Ford, Hitchcock etc) and the new ones who are literally making nothing else than 2 hours-long video game cut scenes.
Just like 'The Thing' from John Carpenter.
@@plastique45 Hey now, I've seen plenty of video game cutscenes that absolutely dwarf some big name movies.
Couldnt have said it better @rivolinho
@@plastique45 Indeed. Compare Jim Cameron's Aliens to anything in that universe made after it. Cameron was a genius at slowly building tension, but I.believe these days directors would be told to have an action scene after 25 minutes because the focus group said so.
I’m so happy I’m not the only one who noticed the Brachiosaurus shot in Fallen Kingdom was a rip off lacking in emotion. The original JP is still my favorite.
Yeah and I don’t like that they even tried to do that. I understand that they wanted to pay respect to the first film, but it’s like come up with something original instead of just riding off the nostalgia from the first film. The constant parallels come off as a bit lazy.
it still blows my mind that this movie came out in 1993
King Kong 60 years before it. And really only about 20 years into the biz.
Also, it blew everyone's minds back then too.
You should have seen it in the theatres, just the big screen and chest rumbling growls from the T-Rex.
I never felt that scared in a theater until I saw the opening 20 minute Omaha Beach scene in saving Private Ryan 5 years later.
@@kennethholder8412 one of the few movies I saw more than once: the second time I watched the audience reactions as much as the screen. The whole cinema jumped out of their seats in the raptor sequences.
Because 1993 was such a long time ago, right? Did they even have cars then, it was so long ago, right? Idiot snowflake.
I remember watching Jurassic park for the first time as a kid. The experience was nothing short of magical.
There are few movies I saw as kid which really changed me, JP is one of them, I just love that film. Also you can feel the best of 90s in that movie, all those toys and new technologies, today time is boring, you have same looking phone since 2012.
@@Pidalin I agree, it felt like going to the zoo for the first time and seing animals that you have never seen before outside from books from books or the tv.
@@Wulf-sq9zw Yeah, I like zoos and parks, that's mostly one of the first things I visit when I am in different country or city. :-)
Lol
I watched Jurassic Park in theaters when I was in the 3rd grade and it was the most terrifying experience I ever had. Well done Spielberg.
6:15, I never even noticed the animatonic changing to a CGI model at that point. Amazing.
Yeah, me too! It was so fluent that even if I noticed it in the first place - I just kept watching the movie.
Same, it was until I watched VFX Artists Reacts I learn about this.
(They also explain the reason that scene was set at night raining, aside from being scary, was to have an easier time making the lighting on the CGI T-Rex believable)
The first Jurassic Park will always hold a special place in my heart. How I wish movies today would bring this kind of fresh idea to the screen.
Eventually
@@Eggnog88 jurassic galaxy: locusts return
This masterpiece has stood the test of time remarkably well. Such an iconic film
its spelled iconical* dumbas
Jason Ricci Yes. I definitely don’t watch it and think “ew the graphics have aged terribly!” Instead I think “damn this still looks great!” That’s how you know it’s an artistic masterpiece. Nobody looks at da Vinci’s work and scoffs at how rudimentary it looks. Jurassic Park is a cinematic masterpiece.
@@rawtrout007 Holy shit your'e dumb
It also helps that the CGI artists seemed to have a grasp on the limitations of CGI at the time. One of the interesting things about photorealism in CGI is that it often relies on the smaller details that the audience isn't consciously paying attention to (hence why Thanos looks so convincing in the Infinity War movies; the animators actually went through the effort of making his skin pores stretch) but because we're talking about a movie released in the mid 90s there wasn't much the CGI artists could do to increase the details of the dinosaurs so instead they used some rather crafty smoke and mirror techniques; sometimes they would have the dinosaurs rendered at a distance where the audience couldn't possibly perceive any of the missing details and sometimes they would use shadows in scenes with low lighting to conceal the areas we'd most likely expect to find the finer details (this technique was used during the T-Rex scene with the jeep which is why it looks so insanely real). On top of they also used animatronic dinosaurs for some of the close up shots.
The whole trick with shadows concealing missing details is something that seems to pop up in modern video games and is the reason why you might notice things starting to look more realistic during moments of low light such as late evening to early morning times in open areas or inside low lit buildings and caves.
This trick with shadows also happens a lot in Mangakas.
For example, in Berserk by Kentarou Miura (Which have a fantastic art) you can noticed how some details just dont exist in a scene. They're a hidden by shadowing tricks.
Even Renasseince's masterpieces sometimes doesnt really are detailed.
We see beautiful trees in many paintings that seem more real than the real life, but in the end, none of the leaves where painted in detail, the artist just struck the canvas with the brush.
Those visuals tricks to add "detail" without actually having it are being made for centuries.
Just awesome.
@@Heaview Japan has made an art form out of tricking your eye into thinking it sees more than is there... take how most anime has a frame rate of, like, 5 fps, but they get away with it by using lingering shots of characters in the kinds of over-exaggerated dynamic poses you usually get with print comics.
@@cloudnein8114 What? Why are you mad man, lmao
And nowadays it's all dark scenes, lots of fast jump cuts and the only light source being muzzle flash.
Sure it helps with concealment, but goes so far that not only the (unconsciously small) details are masked, but the entirety of the effect is gone.
Came here to say this, early CGI was so hamstrung directors had to think creatively how to solve it's short comings (shadows on wall, a hand or tail visible at a time, shooting only the eyes of the dinos), all of which incidentally created SUSPENSE. Compare this to modern day where it's no longer a technological issue to show a wide shot of a very realistic dinosaur from head to toe...directors take this new freedom like a kid playing with Hot Wheels, and start making the dinosaurs behave very unrealistically, zapping all suspense.
There's a reason Steven Spielberg is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.
I wonder if the last jurassic world movie got any more oomph behind it if spielberg actually returned to direct it.
@@halipatsui9418 you read my mind haha
Yeah not many other directors can compete. Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan is both on my top movies of all time list. And then when you add Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark into the mix, not to mention E.T., Close Encounters of the third kind and Jurassic Park. We are indeed talking about one of the greatest directors that ever lived.
@@FabledGentleman ready player one and tintin too ;3
Word
A fantastic analysis of the Mastery of Steven Spielberg. I still quote him when I'm talking to my production Apprentice about attention to detail. Spielberg said "people may not notice the attention to detail you put in a film, but they notice when it's not there." side note, one of the Apprentice I trained in 3D animation went on to work at ILM on Jurassic Park.
"It takes a generation of readers to create a generation of writers." Steven Spielberg.
@Joshua Ngau Ajang The time is now, and the film is parasite
Yep. And the current generation has only read Harry Potter and Buzzfeed.
@@Dr.TJ_Eckleburg And 50 tons of grey
@@Dr.TJ_Eckleburg Explaisn why the current generation of writers is so garbage... Thanks god my prefered authors will ever be there, Vance, Zelasny, Tolkien, heck, even Eddings are a thousand of times better than the majority of the ones today.
@@Eviligniter Gotta look outside the US for the most part. 2000s were the second coming of pulp here.
Yes! I'm so glad someone pointed out that beautiful transition between animatronic and cgi. It's an underappreciated shot in this amazing film!
It's got to be the slickest transition in any of the movies. Still amazes me every time I watch this
Like contact when young Jodi Foster ran towards the mirror. For her dad's medicine.
Seen the movie at least a dozen times...had no idea there were 2 different effects in that shot. Just seamless.
Well, it _should_ be underappreciated. That's the point of a seamless transition.
So beautiful. Never knew of it!
Another aspect that contributes heavily to the horror of Jurassic Park is seeing adults scared. That used to really affect me as a kid when I watched this movie. The movie shows how afraid and apprehensive even the adults are of the dinosaurs before leaving the children to deal with the dinosaurs on their own in the two pinnacle scenes of the movie.
@G E T R E K T 905 "HE LEFTUS!!! HE LEFT US!!!"
Ev An That’s a really good point.
Ev An lol
Seeing adults apprehensive/scared...
Like in every other thriller/horror movie of all time?
Broken Wave I think a lot of it has to do with the context in which the adults express their fear and cope with it. All the adult characters in this movie have different perspectives on John Hammond’s ambitions. Their emotions and reactions become as integral to the plot as they do to the individual story lines. Adults being scared isn’t new, yes. But I find too often that a character’s fear is almost...generic. Of course a character should be afraid of a serial killer chasing them in the dark. But there’s a difference between a lot of movies with a similar scenario and the last 15 minutes of “Silence of the Lambs”. It’s like it means more when Clarice is afraid. I think Alan Grant’s fear is so palpable because he is the character who best understands the delicate balance of chaos (Ian Malcom) and control (John Hammond). He knows everyone on the island is way out of their depth. The only way they’re going to survive is if they assume death is waiting at every turn.
i think what really drives me insane about the newer movies is how they moved so far away from horror and more into humor
That’s not it. The original had plenty of humour as well. Ian Malcolm was a comic relief character but he was hilarious. The new movies just don’t have as much passion and soul put into them.
@@nms7872 i didnt say the original had no humor. I said the new ones moved from horror and MORE into humor.
@@Rook101 id say there's just as much humour in the new films as much as the old films. It's just that the original was much funnier. And the series was never really a "horror" series despite the fact that it had some tense moments
@@nms7872 k
You’re spot on. The original was far more tense and scary. The newer ones are essentially dumb cgi fests with too much comedy.
Don't forget John Williams! The score is unreal.
No joke: The Jurassic Park theme is the theme for my entire generation of paleontologists.
Oh god yeah. I have such a hard time to find people who like John Williams' work, it's super sad.
5 Minutes Movies of course he is good but not my type at all way too classical I feel he is overrated
@@daddychill7863 Whatever. He's still one of the most influential movie composers of all time.
@@daddychill7863 Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Superman, E.T., Harry Potter, Schindler's List, Hook, Home Alone, The Olympics theme song. Are you telling me the man who made all these iconic scores is overrated? The Imperial March is one of the best villain songs ever.
That brachiosaurus reveal, paired with Williams' score, never fails to bring me to tears.
Yeah and the ending with the Trex
The same for me, even when i'm only thinking of it ... at work for example... With everyone around me not understanding why i'm in tears hahaha
Yes! I felt exactly what the character was feeling in that scene.
Tears? What a bitch👎🏽💩
It’s just a movie....
I wonder why these newer directors are making movies with such poor camera work, haven't they studied cinema?
...Or watched an educational RUclips video at the very least??
Time and budget...
Also. Even though I'm convinced some of them are very talented. Studying music wont turn you into a Beethoven or Peter Gabriel. Same goes for movie directing.
@@Dr_Do-Little Good insight.
Because our generation has no work ethic. They don't care about the quality and craft of their work.
Multiple generations of degeneracy from tv programming, people rejecting God, and everything that's good.
@@trentsc4929 Back in Spielberg's day rejecting god was a new thing, so maybe that extra rebelliousness and having to fight for the truth added something to the times. Now a days, we're complacent and are lazily letting religion seep back in. Time to rebel again!
I have always been impressed by the realism of the dinosaurs in
Jurassic Park. Even now, after all these years, it seems like the Jurassic Park movie with the best graphics and effects.
The water cup scene was so good that I think many of us did it as a game when we were kids acting like T-Rex is coming to join us at dinner. 😂
Still the best CGI in history.
Never over expose your monsters.
Gorilla Jones
Why you call this the best? Why you say that?
The Next GUI windows menu, the animations, Maya scripts, the mel rendering now just old...
The frame???
This RUclips guy, no skills, not understanding, just mumbling....Cheap RUclips levels......
I wouldn't call it "the best", but more so the most convincing CGI.
Godzilla 2014 took the "never over expose monsters" to such a level where Godzilla became a side character in his own film.
It wasn't the best CGI by a long shot, they were just aware of its limitations and the practical effects for the close ups married perfectly with the CGI for the long shots, the later movies lean more heavily on CGI and that means its limitations are far more apparent, but when you see the dino's in the daytime thats when the CGI really shows its age.
katakisLives I agree that they look worse in the daylight, especially the first 2 or 3 scenes with dinos, they looked utterly terrible.
I remember watching jurassic world in the theatre, only thinking to myself: wow. How can this look worse than the movie made in 1994?
1993 mate.
@@masterpenguin8472 sorry, my bad
@@masterpenguin8472 If anything that just further proves his point
One thing I didn't like about the World movies is how literally every second of the movie has music playing. I liked how the original didn't used any to build suspense
How was it worse? The technology has only improved since 1993. The dinosaurs looked more realistic and mobile in JW.
Back when directors didn’t just rely on “fixing it in post” with CGI.
Unfortunately Spielberg has now fully embraced cgi to the extent he doesn't seem to bother with stunts or practical effects at all. Such a shame the way he has discarded his talent.
@@j.cgallagher7092 Which is why Kingdom of the Crystal Skull looks so awful.
@@artbargra yes, everything about that film is dreadful
and color saturation
This is why Christopher Nolans movies are good today.
Not to mention one of the greatest soundtracks in existence
John Williams is God!
Dino steps in LFE channel in surround system an eargasm for home cinema fans.
After a these years still my top favourite.
Yes, are you a musician? 😅
I think BTTF soundtrack is better. But, yes, JP soundtrack is one of the best.
I love Sam Neill in this. His acting is so subtle. He is fascinating to watch.
I watched every one his movies after seeing this. He was underrated in Event Horizon.
@@ChefofWar33 now I'm going to do that.
@@ChefofWar33 He was splendid in Event Horizon, especially in some of the cut scenes. The result was that otherwise dickish and stupid behavior (like trying to write off uncomfortable facts as "eh, well, maybe you're just hysterical") made sense, and even once he turned really bad, I still couldn't help but feel for him.
I think he always is (okay, with one exception being the one-CGI-effect-per-minute Merlin thing - enjoy the irony). I've seen a lot of his movies and good guy or bad guy, he always draws me in.
oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
This is the best use of Special effects to look real, especially considering the time it came out.
That goes to show how important the human element brought by each director is. Regardless of how advanced the technology is, it's useless if you don't know how to use it well.
Agreed. Still the most convincingly special effects I've seen in a movie.
im guessing uve never seen the cgi in starship troopers lmao
I'm so lucky to have grown up on Spielberg. He's such a master at his craft.
Even if it gets dissed by critics, I love Hook. I grew up watching it, and it still holds up as a lovely film. Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins are just gold.
@@sleepytreeguy Dissed by critics? Hook!? Ooohhh let me at 'em...
yep, remember JAWs, amazing stuff
@Frank Furter Oh Hell yeah, man. Every one a classic. (Except that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull disaster. Let's just go ahead and forget that one ever happened.) Not even one single stinker... 😜
@Frank Furter Good man. Can't say I'm not jealous.
3:57 "But awe is only half the picture"
Brilliant! You've perfectly captured the essence of Jurassic Park.
When a movie from the 90s is better than most of today movies you know it's a Masterpiece Classic
When a movie made in the 90s feels like it could have been made in the current year (save for the clothing), this is also how you know its a Masterpiece.
Just movie is bad. It has no characters and all is plot to show The Chaos Theory which movie never properly did. JP2 TLW was way better because there actually happen things which books always hinted that dinos reach mainland.
If a movie today is better then a movie from pre 2005 it's gotta be good!
@@michaelstark8720 What? Just movie is bad? Has no Characters? Plot was simply to show Chaos theory listen bud, we can't take your opinion seriously if you're intellectual capacity is in the lower percentages. If you didn't enjoy it then hey, all the power to ya but the majority did so it can be said that it was an excellent film.
More importantly, when a movie from the 90s LOOKS far better than most of todays movies you know it's a Masterpiece, including much better and more realistic looking special effects, which is NOT something I ever thought would be the case 20 years ago!
This makes a person appreciate the thought and genius that goes into making something the caliber of Jurassic Park. This is one of the few effects-heavy movies that transcends time, and will continue to look great for many years, if not forever.
I would also put The Matrix, and most Cameron films in that category.
@@TheAlibabatree and there is matrix 4 coming
@@lexiu6364 Oh, boy. Im not gonna expect much from that lol
This is just a masterpiece
This movie blew my mind when it came out. It was like the beginning of a new era of filmmaking with this.
The Matrix? Pretty bad CGI, very obvious in parts.
I watched JP on cable a few months ago. It's amazing how well it has held up over time. It's one of those "nearly perfect" films that never needs to be remade. So I'm sure it'll be remade.
Jurassic Park and Alien still looks more realistic than nowadays multi million dollar CGI!!
Justice Warrior Thank you for your point! I’ve been watching many RUclips videos on Alien before the “suggestions” dropped this video in the mix. Anyway, the Alien video commentaries & documentaries reminded me why I’ve loved Alien all these years. And, why I prefer the original over the sequels. I find it’s the same thing with Jurassic Park, especially after watching this video. I was curious to read people’s thoughts in the Comments, and your comment was PERFECT for what I’ve been feeling. Good on ya!
Thats why I like 80s movies then today movies they feel so real
And yet all the studios do now is try to “reboot” or “reimagine” the old classics with modern CGI. I just don’t get it.
Hell yeah. Our brains can (usually) tell when something is physically present on screen, and when it isn't.
@Tobias Jun-Taek Mueller You're right, of course. It's creators using CGI as a shortcut that gets us crap effects.
1993: Frame within a frame
2019: CGI within a CGI
CGI rocks and practical effects suck.
@@lastoutlaw3882 I outlasted the last outlaw.
@@lastoutlaw3882 you suck
@@lastoutlaw3882 CGI has been looking kinda shitty lately. It's not the technology, it's that CGI artists don't have a lot time to fully complete their work. Black Panther fight sequence towards the end of the movie is a perfect example.
@@noelv1976 cgi always surpasses stupid practical effects
Jurassic Park is a phenomenal film because it excels in all the important qualities of a superb film:
- Cinematography,
- Writing,
- Acting,
- Production,
- Score,
Bonus: A non-cynical ending. Having a non-cynical ending allows the film to be re-watchable over and over again because the viewer knows that it will have a "good" ending. A cynical ending, while it usually is more powerful, keeps the viewer from wanting to revisit the film again.
That's an interesting idea.
It’s like comparing the lord of the rings with the hobbit. The former being far superior because of these same reasons.
Maybe add music to the list?
Great comment, but I think it's cynical itself to think that folks rewatch movies on an axis of whether or not they find the movie cynical by the end. A better word might be "resolved". Jurassic Park, to me, ends with so many burning questions about the dangers of technology, considering all the carnage the dinos left behind, but because our protagonists live and interrogate those questions by the end, I find the pressing gaps to be resolved.
I just say this because I've seen many a movie with a tangibly "good" endings go entirely unresolved and deeply uninterrogated. And I can think of nothing more cynical than that.
Ding ding ding!!!! This our best comment here.
Another factor I think plays into this is that culturally, these sort of visuals were so much rarer back in the 90's. It wasn't like we could see that sort of technical innovation just anywhere as a kid. Going from a 16 bit platform game to seeing life-like dinosaurs is much more awe-inspiring than making the same jump from a modern game in 4K
Not just "rare". There simply had never been anything like it. "The dinosaurs actually look real" was THE big selling point. People simply wanted to see the dinosaurs. Titanic and Independence Day were also like that. After that there really hasn't been movies where the visuals and spectacle alone have made a movie a cultural event. Avatar maybe.
@OFFLINE YT wait what, I never said it doesn't hold up
Good stuff! I had not noticed how the aspect ratio and framing changed my perspective of that classic.
Regarding the ending phrase of the essay. Spielberg's tale about filming Jaws and the animatronic not working a lot of the time so he had to spend that time filming water and nothing else and trying to see how he could make the images feel ominous, scary etc is my alltime favourite insight into how the cinematic image works. Genious.
Do you have a link to that video?
@@southpark645 I'll try to dig up the source but it was a very long time ago... It's either a DVD commentary or a print article I happened to read.
Possibly the commentary for David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, because it could have been an analogy with the way David Lean shot sand and desert landscapes and made the meaningful with entirely visual means.
@@alexandrumircea if you can tell me where to find it, I’d appreciate it! I love learning about stuff like this and hearing from the greats!
Did u find the link?
It is ironic that the malfunctioning shark animatronic actually taught Spielberg one of his most valuable techniques. Think about it. His initial plan was to show the shark as often as possible. I think most can agree that Jaws wouldn't have been nearly as frightening.
Now I know why I liked Jurassic Park and didn’t like the sequels.
As Uber driver, two girls fr college in Berkeley talk. It is about a boyfriend who flirted with a different girl. The "victim", who's boyfriend dare to talk to not her then ask "How should I feel"?
Back to Jurassic park: How should you feel about the sequel? Now you know.
I realized this with the latest version. We don't really feel the dimensions of the dinosaurs in the new one. The volcano scene needed wvweybpdy to look extremely tiny compared to the terrain.
@Joshua Phillips Koepp wrote the first TWO movies and lent ideas to JP/// and maybe even JW....I know for sure JP///.
Also because you the sequels are shameless cash-grabs
I wanted to post something similar. :D
First movie had the passion of its creators for movies, the other were just soulless franchise products.
Movies really were better in the 80's-90's. Maybe that's just nostalgia talking, but I feel like when I watch them they have a greater sense of "awe", there was more craft and people focused more on the foundations and essentials. Good framing, the correct lens combinations, natural lighting, natural editing with smooth transitions meant to convey feeling. Today everything is just "throw more money into fixing that in post, and CGI the crap out of everything". I miss the craft of filmmaking.
I would go so far to say that some in the 00s also had that, but it was less common. Let's not forget that the LOTR movies were mostly done in 99/00 with some minor shots up until 04. There is much CGI in them, but also lots of things done physically. And they still look amazing.
@@HappyBeezerStudios The LOTR movies are some of the best ever made, so that's true. But movies from the last 10 years (generally speaking) have been surprisingly terrible, almost as if Hollywood is out of good ideas. I suspect the onslaught of super hero movies didn't help any.
@@JoshChristiane One example of why JP holds on a little better then LOTR dispite it being older is Gollum, great character but the CGI looks dated and out of place.
@@doggie7602 Agreed, but for its time it was pretty good, good enough to tell the story at least. But animatronics always look better than CGI IMO.
And, also, get off my lawn.
Cinematography is so often overlooked, it's what can make you love a movie without even realizing it!!
I didn't know about the aspect ratios, this was very informative!
@@jaquigreenlees For gamers it wouldn´t make much sense to have taller monitors because they´d mostly just display more sky where nothing is happening.
Having a wide monitor grants a better view of the general area and even of the map.
I´d also suspect manufacturers to be reluctant to increase the height steadily because it´s being used to categorize resolutions (1080p, 1440p etc.) which customers have been accustomed to. They´d wash out their discrete price levels and complicate the manufacturing process. Further, most applications don´t do too well with "in-between" resolutions because they´re not programmed responsively enough.
@@ciraxa Well the wider monitors have lower area (so they are cheaper to made) with the same diagonal:)
Because they took their time making the movie, instead of rushing it like its sequels.
Geno52 exactly. I remember seeing an ad for Jurassic Park in People Magazine. It was the gate backlit at dusk with the the Tagline “June 11th. The Park is open...” That’s all. That’s all they gave the public to go on.
Yes this adventure was 65 million years in the making. You don't see that nowadays ;)
buffalojoe78 if they pulled off a great movie it could have been awesome as an advertising strategy
@@BoyBlunder66 empire strikes back went like 2 months overschedule and way over budget. imagine if empire was made now.'
Also in the making The Lost World Spielberg mentioned it took twice as long to do each "Jurassic" as it did to film a normal comedy or drama.
Man, you picked out things that enhance a film, that I would never have thought of. Very clever
Clever girl
@@TriteNight1218 hahaha! Thought EXACTLY the same! xD
@@TriteNight1218 Just want to point out how classy and boss AF that guy was to compliment his killer before being eaten alive.
Clever girl.
To me, the two greatest examples of directing are Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings. Both are exquisite, with nearly perfect angles, panning, etc. - I honestly think every film student should study Jurassic Park as a mandatory part of their education. It oozes with intelligent framing and overall perfection. Sometimes, the angles are so good, I find myself appreciating them rather than actually watching the movie... lol
#1 dinosaurs looked real
#2 it was actually scary
#3 better writing
#4 better actors
Yup
Yup
Yup
Yup
I watched this when i was five on vhs, my mom told me i would have nightmares. Afterwards I told her that I need Jurassic Park merch(ok not rly I didn't know merchandise was a thing cuz I was 5)
ikr. vhs jurassic park 1, 2, 3 and it looks better than this crappy jurassic world. lol
Biggest Upset all three are the best. The last two are a joke.
@@nsr5961 Part 3 SUCKED. Only the first 2 are good.
The Lost World gets a bad rap. It has some amazing sequences in it, particularly the T-Rex attack on the cliff. It just builds and builds and Poor Eddie is trying so hard to be the hero and when he gets ripped in half it's brutal, both visually and emotionally.
I think the cliff sequnce is my favorite in the entire series.
Good standalone sequences. But Jurassic Park flows whereas Lost World stutters and jumps.
I don't think any of the Jurassic Park sequels are actually bad movies I think they just get a bad rap because they'll always get compared to the first which is legitimately one of the greatest films ever made. It's just a tough act to follow.
Shad Miles There's truth to that. With a film like the original "Jurassic Park," the question becomes 'HOW exactly do you follow up something like that?' Spielberg, Joe Johnston, Colin Trevorrow, and J.A. Bayona have all tried to answer that question in their own unique ways. Whether or not they succeeded I say all boils down to *who* is watching the sequels.
Dylan Brown Why thank you! 😊
Shad Miles Fallen Kingdom was pretty abhorrent though to be honest.
That animatronic transition to cgi is literally what makes Spielberg a film making god.
Everything in the new movies are bad.
Acting, special effects, plot.
It's like the new movies are written by 12 year olds.
I like the second movie tho, that one was entertaining.
@@nr1NPC Star Wars got the same treatment. The acting is the best part of the Sequels and it’s mediocre acting
@@alpacawithouthat987 I liked some of the world building aspects, but the dialogue was terrible, the character motivation sometimes seemed forced and the special effects didn't age nearly as well as the original series which is doing really well for how old it is now.
Yes but Spielberg had nothing to do with that, it was ILM.
Literally literally or figuratively literally?
I was born in 84 and 9 years old when I saw JP. IT WAS SCARY and IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. What a masterpiece.
Whenever I rewatch JP, i always feel im right there with the characters
Earthly Fireflies pardon
Same, the park, the branding, the wrap in the jeeps with the logo, looks so cool and real, feels like a place you can visit for real.
Just movie is bad. It has no characters really and all is plot to show The Chaos Theory which movie never properly did. JP2 TLW was way better because there actually happen things which books always hinted that dinos reach mainland.
That was one of the greatest achievements of the movie, how it immersed you in a real world with antagonists that don't exist now. Truly amazing.
@@guidorussoheck2100 No. If you have the money to buy and sell property, then you have the money to pay stamp duty.
It's like Bali Bogans who spend $2000 a head on flights and accom, then whine and cry when their hospital bill is $10,000, because they "couldn't afford $150 for travel insurance"
Life is not a free ride. If you want all the benefits of living in Victoria, including all the benefits of this massive infrastructure spend, you must pay for it.
And I don't know how many people are buying and selling houses more than 1 or 2 times in a life.
If you are doing it more often than that, then you are doing life wrong.
6:20 - that transition from animatronic to CGI is flawless, the CGI being the best (I think) ever done. It's unclockable
There is better CGI today but the way this movie is shot you don't really pay attention to those details. I think the blend of animatronics and CGI makes the film more realistic compared to today's films.
thats what made it so great, there are alot of animatronic to CGI wipes, but they are masked by other objects that our minds dont see it and think its still animatronic.
What surprised me to learn was that when the T-Rex had it’s foot on the Ford Explorer.. that Explorer was a CG model, not a physical rig! Flawless transition! Spaz Williams, you mad genius!
The only scene where I notice "bad" CGI is the brontosaurus shot. It's the first dinosaur you see and it actually sets a low bar.
The Rex breakout scene is incredible though. Sure thr darkness helps mask the CGI, but it's also raining and yet it's still flawless.
Perspective and object size in frame is super under utilized. 9/10 they just change the angle and call it a day.
elronman is the 9/10 a rating or does it mean “9 times out of ten”? Genuine question, that changes this comment quite a bit.
@@tuxedobird latter. 9 times out of 10.
The best part of Jurassic Park for me was the look, scenery, and design of it. The visitor center for example was something that stayed with me months after I watched it because of how it looked. The design and Scenery was something that I had never seen before so it really interested me. While the new sequels don’t have a new environment I feel, it mainly focuses on the action. Jurassic park stuck with something that matched the feel of the Jurassic age with the style of the building. Jurassic World had these new modern type building that didn’t go well in my opinion with dinosaurs and the age they lived in. I think the worst thing about the sequels is there design, Yes dinosaurs destroying building with a fight is cool but Jurassic Park didn’t need it to be good which is one of the best things about it. Ok what I’m trying to say is the design and scenery helped Jurassic park along with the dinosaurs and likeable characters. While Jurassic world relies to heavily on the dinosaurs and action. A movie for me at least needs to have separate factors that combine to make it great which Jurassic park did. Jurassic World only has two factors dinosaurs and action that it relies on which makes the movie meh. Oh and another thing that makes Jurassic park better is the sound affects but I feel I have described enough reasons already.
Edit: sorry for rant Jurassic park is really good and I wanted to let people know why I think it’s good :)
Loved your comment. In fact, the font they used for Title Introduction as well as within Jurassic Park such as on sign post was so eerily unique that it still continues to make me nervous. The movie is six Sigma of movie making
Jurassic Park is a Masterclass in Direction, music, editing, and compsition. Also, Jeff Goldblum.
How to Jeff Goldblum! Next Video.
Then Jeff Goldblum would go on to become Ian Malcolm for the rest of his natural life.
I went to see the first Jurassic park at the cinema when it came out. I was around 14 or so I think. It was simply fantastic! It was thrilling, scary, intense, jaw dropping. IT WAS THE FIRST PROPER DINOSAUR FILM THAT WAS REALISTIC!!! So much so that a kid literally ran out of the cinema in tears because he was scared. Man what a good film!
Scott Spalding where did you see the movie? 😂😂
Same for me, was about 12, 13 years old when it came out. I was so hyped for it. Great movie!
I was in 5th grade. My entire class had shown up and were sitting in a group. To my knowledge no one had planned it.
I may have been that kid! I watched it when I was 4 years old and right when the T-Rex. Saw that guy on the toilet. I knew that he was going to get eaten and I cried and literally ran outa the theater with my mom lol.. scariest thing I had ever seen. To see someone so vulnerable to something so scary. It did NOT go well with me lol
You kids were weak asf. My parents made me and my brother watch the scariest R-Rated movies at the time back in the early, mid, to late 80's. We sat there and watched it & stfu about it no matter how scary it was.
Spielberg: Half asses The Lost World Jurassic Park, still makes a better movie than any of the other sequels.
i think the lost world nailed it as a sequel, is not a bad movie by itself either, it has goofy moments and may not live up to the original, but still an enjoyable movie to watch... the others on the other hand.... painful to watch
@@Sacrengard the dinosaur action is miles better in the sequel. that raptor sequence in the long grass is iconic, so is the trailer over the cliff.
@@CamJames yes! and off course the t rex in san diego. Its a memorable movie.
@@CamJames and it a sequel that works well because it kept the same formula as the original: intro with a dino attack, then setting the reason to go to thr island, thr awe moment, the t rex attack in the storm, a side dino eats a bad guy, the raptors attack, and the t rex kills the bad guy in the end
Alex M absolutely. It levels up in every way
I went to the cinema as a 14 year old to watch this back in the day and it was, for me, when cinema had you in awe. I wish kids today could experience cinema like it used to be
That's very nice of you, I guess kids do lose their "first time" with cinema to a subpar movie sometimes.
K was born in 2006 i saw a replay of toys tory as my first theater experience so id say i was pretty awestruck
I was 27 when I saw it at the theater and loved it. Reading the “Making Of” book now.
I was 8, my brother was 5 and my Dad had to take him out of the cinema about half way though. I had nightmares for weeks imagining a velociraptor was about to come into my bedroom. It is the only film that really scared me.
Films like that pioneered cg effects. And they used when needed.
And sadly, the promise of "no limits to your imagination" turned into "no limits to your laziness"
Cg today vs cg back then feels like the first guy in the 19th century who realized his grandma cake recipe could be produced en masse with machines, and made them with less soul and passion than his grandma
Well that and the fact the original artists at ILM and the like got their start in cinematography and stop-motion. Meaning they had to know things like lighting which are super important toward creating a realistic and effective....effect. Now animators and modelers don't know as much about that so their effects look more out of place. Combine that with audiences being used to the effects now and the sheer saturation of effects in films and it is a recipe for bleh. Plus it is just cheaper overall AND easier like you said.
Good cgi can be done, its just usually done so last minute because producers demanded something to be changed, so animators get weeks or days instead of months to do it
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say lol
@@scottb3034
this is the case with pretty much any craft.
when you start out as an apprentice metal worker, you'll be filing blocks of metal straight with your hands for a few months before you're allowed to even touch a machine, we learn how to do simple maths in our heads before we're allowed to use calculators in schools and only after we get used to those can we work with an actual computer to do even more complex calculations with excel and stuff like that.
similarly i'd say visual effects artists should be working with a practical effects team for at least half a year before they're even allowed to touch a computer, you're not going to get a feel for how things look under natural light in a cubicle.
@@erikschwartz1214 CGI fits more for backgrounds. Not "living things".
When they try to make characters in CGI, it lacks soul.
Compare Lord of the Rings trilogy with the Hobbit.
Hobbit is also pure shit
The impact ripples in the cup of water? It makes me feel "Oh shit, no...."
SightSeer Ikr! That whole sequence where they are caught in the cars with the T-Rex, actually freaked me out! (Starting with that water rippling in that cup! Oh, sh#&!) and I don't get scared easily in films! I didn't really feel any of that with any of the sequels. Spielberg is truly one of a kind.
@@cest_what I guess you say sh#&, I just say shit.
Teehee- I’m in danger!
Without fail, that T. Rex roar makes my arm hair stand on end every. single. time.
Still one of the scariest sounds in movie history.
Same here. We used to try and imitate it as kids when playing Jurassic Park. Wow, our neighbours must have hated us.
Where they have taken this roar from btw?
@@paulbadman8509 It's main sound is provided by the slowed down sound of a baby elephant.
@@paulbadman8509 it's Darudes Sandstorm sped up X5 and then played backwards
@@lloyd4011 nope. It's actually a combination of multiple animals
I have rewatched this video so many times as an architect for references in creating scale and feeling in my renderings... A brilliantly swift and concise master class.
Gareth Edwards is great at conveying scale in the 2.39 aspect ratio (Godzilla 2014) (Rogue One 2016) Jordan Vogt-Roberts also did a good job in (Kong: Skull Island 2017)
He also did that monster movie....Now I want him to do a Jurassic park movie. The world movies are garbage.
@@ninjaboy360 I'd be 100% ok with that
@@ninjaboy360 I disagree, Jurassic world was awesome and fallen kingdom was ok. I do wanna see Gareth Edwards direct a Jurassic park movie
@@SaurianStudios1207 i am, at the very least, going to give Fallen Kingdom points for effort. it's clear that they where trying to go places, and they did end up doing that.
@@SaurianStudios1207 I am not a fan at all. The only scene out of either movies that I actually enjoyed was the opening of fallen kingdom. Those first 10 minutes were incredible.
That being said I wont knock anyone who likes them. I am glad someone does.
As a more casual moviegoer, I seem to only acknowledge cinematography as "good" when I see more dynamic and extreme uses of camera angles and framing. While I always felt that Jurassic Park was a standout film, I couldn't pinpoint why I felt that way about it, besides the clever writing and purposeful use of practical effects. I really appreciate this video because you explain how meaningful cinematography doesn't always have to be recognized on a conscience level by the audience to make an impact; there are plenty of subtle ways to leave an impression too. This gave me a new perspective to view movies with- thank you, and keep up the good work!
I get your point but sometimes it is the subtle use of those things that you in fact do NOT notice that makes them effective.
Arguably the greatest film of all time. Between the brilliant directing and acting, you’re in a constant state of fear and anxiety as if you’re right there with the characters. There’s also natural humor unlike the forced humor you see in almost every movie today no matter the genre.
Yep. Take the Marvel movies: Tony Stark should really be the only Avenger cracking jokes nonstop - a few from others here and there is all you need; for this, look at Age of Ultron. In the newer installments, however, EVERYONE is a quippy, witty, jokey genius that exposits campy jokes one after another and it just gets annoying.
@@hanburgundy4317 Actually Peter Parker is the quipper. Even moreso than Stark. Stark was an A-Hole and an alcoholic in the comics. the a-hole behavior and the delivery by Downey is what makes him funny I guess. But he isn't what I would call a jokester. That's Peter who does that as a mechanism to cope with stress.
@@scottb3034 Well obviously, but Spider-Man is anew addition to the MCU - as far as the main cast goes, Tony has been "the funny one" and should generally be the primary figure filling that role instead of the entire cast.
@@hanburgundy4317 yeah true. At least the one intentionally funny one. Thor's manner of speaking can be funny unintentionally. But otherwise cap, Hawkeye, black widow and hulk weren't jokesters for sure.
Greatest of all time? Nah. Godfather, yes. Jaws, hell yes!
Honestly I would *love* to see a breakdown like this comparing "Conan the Barbarian" 1982 vs 2011, because I've never really been able to articulate why the earlier one is just more "cinematic" while the new one feels like a television movie. I've watched them both back to back to try to understand why I find the first one so much more compelling and I've never been able to put my finger on it.
Ooo, good one. Why did Arnie's Conan just feel more epic than Momoa's?
I think a lot of it is the score
Every new video essay on Jurassic Park I watch further cements my belief that this film is a genuine masterpiece.
Greatest line in movie history:
_Ah, ah, ahhh...you didn’t say the magic word! Ah, ah, ahhh. Ah, ah ahhhh._
That is one big... pile of shit.
(:
Pleeeze! I hate this hacker shit!
Hold on to your butts...
Because movies (and everything else) focuses on quick money grabs rather than art or substance. Spielberg made movies cause he enjoyed them and was good at it. The money was just a means to continue doing it. No one cares about the journey anymore, or the skill, it's all bottom line.
Sauce?
Watching (well-made) video like this about how amazing movies were back in the day 1) make me angry, and 2) prove that perhaps more often than not, nostalgia *isn't* just fond memories through rose0colored glasses. Some things were actually done much better before cgi and corporate cinematic universe.
Corporations have been around for a while, but we always seem to go through phases where their behaviour gets more and more out of hand, for various cultural, legal and technical reasons.
The first major issues for Film was the studio system where studios both produced the content and owned the places the films were shown.
This turned out to be pretty bad for film-goers.
Meanwhile video streaming services are headed down the exact same trajectory, suggesting that overall, we haven't learnt a thing.
Films have become all about glitzy shallow spectacle to get as many people as possible to watch. Budgets have skyrocketed, but the actual storytelling hasn't improved, and in many cases has degenerated.
Consider that even taking into account inflation, something like Back to the Future is now in the realms of being a low budget film, which shows how out of hand things are getting.
Film isn't the only industry suffering - the internet is ruining gaming through a combination of abusing the fact that games can be patched at any time (before 2000 or so patching a PC game was a big ordeal that while possible was generally avoided, and patching a console game was basically impossible short of re-releasing the game)
Meanwhile: Microtransactions, Day 1 DLC, Gambling mechanics for DLC content, game design deliberately broken to make the microtransactions more appealing, content that used to be included in the base game now segmented off as DLC... Adding lootboxes after the fact several weeks down the road to mess up reviewers... Always online DRM making it possible that in some cases you can't even play the game you paid for...
Oh, and like film, ballooning budgets spent primarily on fluff that makes the game 'prettier' and 'bigger' but doesn't really do much to make it a better game...
Seems both industries are trying to see how far they can push things before people have just had enough. (though games more so than film - unless you count what's going on with video streaming services...)
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile...
And every time they get people used to their latest form of scummy behaviour, they try and lower the bar even further, and get people used to even more exploitative stuff...
CGI isn't the problem, its the misuse of it. Too often modern films use CGI where practical effects would have the best impact. LOTR for example used CGI for Gollum but practical makeup effects for the orcs and uruk-hai, and it looked amazing. The Hobbit movies on the other hand used CGI for all monsters, and that aspect of it suffered because of it. The White Orc just looked terrible imo.
Jurassic Park had a lot of CGI in it as well. CGI is just a tool. And like any tool, it can be used to great effect, and it can be poorly used as well.
@@KuraIthys Entertainment is dying, and it needs to imho.
CGI is not the problem. But nowadays most of the blockbusters are brainless cash machines with only action sequences running on a two lines script. Sad.
Fortunately there are still some directors who knows how to make good movies.
I’ve never got over the inconsistency in that scene. The TRex walks through the fence, then 10 minutes later, it becomes a 60’ vertical drop and a car is thrown over it. But the scene is so amazing I’m willing to overlook and enjoy.
Also the vehicles already pass the T-Rex fence during the day. How come they come back there again?
This just provided a great criticism and lesson on cinematography.
Thanks for educating me, man! 👍
I laugh when people complain about me watching RUclips all day. I try and explain I am learning stuff. Today it's about filmmaking and cinematography.
@@seanriopel3132 indeed me too!!! 🙂🙂🙂
candiigurl7893 he's not your "man" dude
@@TheMarioMen1 ＇1为
Excellent explanations. Love the simple graphics used to illustrate key comparisons.
One can rewatch the original Brachiosaurus reveal scene everyday and still never get the sheer euphoric genius of it.
You described something indescribable very well.
In the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin there's a Brachiosaurus skeleton (well, Giraffatitan, but that's nitpicking).
I swear the "welcome to jurassic park" theme sounded in my head as I was trying to see the skull of that behemoth I have no idea how many metres up in the ceiling. It's quite an experience, 10/10 would go to Berlin again just to see my bony friend.
Almost exactly what I wanted to say as well :]
Im tired of super wide shots, I like this aspec ratio so much better!!!
also subbed, very good analysis!
Different aspect ratios fit different films better. I absolutely LOVE widescreen for most westerns and sci-fi, where the surroundings are just as important as the actors. The problem with widescreen today is that many modern directors/cinematographers don't know how to properly use the format.
@ I can see that, and I agree westerns and Scifi looks amazing on widescreen
One of the first movies to do the cinascope ratio was Lawrence of Arabia. And it was perfect for wide shoot.
Same man. I always turn my Movies to full screen stretch, so it uses the whole screen, I cannot stand the black bars.
1.85:1 is for TV, 2.40:1 is better for theater screens.