It's hard for people to imagine now just how groundbreaking the effects in Jurassic Park were for the time. I had just graduated from highschool in 93, had been doing 3D animation for a couple years, and my dream in life was to work for ILM as a SFX artist. I went to see Jurassic Park that summer and I was absolutely dumbfounded. I went back to the theater 3 more times to watch it, just to look at the effects.
@@MrJacobegg what i don't understand is that how is it possible that we have almost downgraded on The quality of cg of these massive movies as example Hobbit trilogy.
@@tomtomi93 I think it’s mostly good decisions regarding what to show and what to hide, what to do practically and what to do digitally. If you look at certain “making of” videos, they show the different tricks they used to hide issues with the technology. One example was setting the first T-Rex scene on a dark and rainy night so that we never got a clear enough look to identify it as a cartoon.
Your dino still moves as if it weighs as much as a human. As an animator I can see it needs more swing in the hips as the dino is shifting it's massive wieght between each step.
And that is the number 1 reason why Jurassic Park looks better than Jurassic World. The animation. The first movie really nail the speed and weight of the animals while Jurassic World ends up almost cartoonish with extremely loose and floaty fast motion.
@@maxonite What is impressing people with this is that the JP technology is over 30 years old. With the massive leap of CGI in 30 years you would think they could not only match it but beat it. But in fact all they have done is a 1960's style stop motion. Which just gives so much credit to ILM and what they did 3 decades ago. It goes to show no matter how much CGI you have or computer power, sheer talent and creativity will always win!!. JP is testimony to this! Credit to the RUclipsrs for making this video they have just highlighted how amazing ILM was back in the day.
That’s what they said at the end of the video. So timeless, you really just appreciate the care put into. I could rewatch the movie millions of times and still be just as shocked as the first time I saw it.
thats why i loved the n64 console ,its graphics chip is based off the same silicon engine processor used in these early 90s movies especially the workstation SGI the likes of Rareware used for their 3d graphics and wireframe sprites
Only clicked on because in the thumbnail original looked better. Theres in the thumbnail looks to glossy where as the orignal looks realistic and gritty.
You guys understand they weren’t trying to beat the original right. There literally constantly glazing it. The team from the first pacific rim could probably beat the OG It wouldn’t be rocket science.
Thanks for watching everyone!! I think the final shot came out cool, especially considering our limitations. It's by no means perfect. Having the mocap for the dino was a cool idea but honestly that was mostly just a fun bit for the video. In hindsight, we would've been better off manually animating it. But you know what? We learned so much! It's not about getting it perfect. It's about just DOING it, seeing what does and does not work, then adding those lessons to your arsenal of knowledge so that whatever the next thing is can be better!! That's how you grow as an artist.
I think finding an animator or maybe even an animator who can also do rigging would be super useful to help you guys out :) seeing as you are doing more and more full cg stuff with cg characters
i love your work and totally understood the fun bit, and honestly the motioncap looks funny but there are a few specific areas where you can tell its human bones on a trex costume, which could've been its own video. (cgi barney) if this rexxy boy was to be a bit more realistic, I think the feet, ankle and knee joints would need to be reworked entirely. he lifts his foot like a dude and stuff. good work nonetheless, the scene looks dope af
You guys understand they weren’t trying to beat the original right. There literally constantly glazing it. The team from the first pacific rim could probably beat the OG It wouldn’t be rocket science.
@@martinrh76 they used both. It worked because the animatronics and cgi were done masterfully by brilliant artists. That’s the beauty of what they achieved in the original, particularly in the night time sequences like this one.
What continues to astound me is the attention to the “weight” of the dinosaurs in the original. The T-Rex feels heavy. It’s joints and muscles have to cushion it’s own weight when it decides to move. That’s pro level technique.
It's truly a masterpiece... At the time we thought we were just beginning with how great CGI could be, but honestly the more time passes the more I'm starting to think the climax was back then
yes. during the comparison of the t-rex in the 2 films, the t-rex we with the banner falling down on it felt so weighty, which wasn't in the one in the newer films. it's amazing.
yeah honestly the T rex model itself is pretty close to the original movie, I just wish there was some the animators Either new that dinosaurs couldn't and didn't stand that way or had a way to make the posture fully horizontal.
@@KingofTheGojiras it was a time constraint thing. They treated this as a one night challenge, but if they spent another week on animation then they could have nailed it.
Probably because of the animatronic they used for the film. Weighed tons just like a real t-rex and was soaked so it weighed even more. Easy muddy footprint shots
@fire edi Not everything from that scene was cgi. When the rex crashed down on the car's glass, that was an accident made by the rex animatronic. And I believe that car was a real one in that scene, Jurassic Park is a very heavy mixture of cgi and animatronics, that's part of what makes it such a good movie.
@fire edi I know that, but the scene with the rex crashing into the glass and the kids holding it up wasn't cgi. The animatronic naturally wasn't supposed to get wet but they decided to keep filming as it rained, this made the animatronic a hell of a lot heavier and basically made it fall into the glass.
Water splashing out under the T rex's foot when there's no puddle does make sense because the creature is so heavy, its weight forces the water out of the mud. That aside, this is pretty cool on a low budget. :D
I have to admit, I had really low expectations at the beginning of this video and you definitely didn’t disappoint! Your shot literally looks like ass. Good job guys!
It wasnt even close. Ive seen better animation in stop motion movies and even fan-made stop motion with toys. Heck even i did better visual work as a 10 year old with my Jurassic Park toys in the garden and an oldschool camera.
The puddles WOULD actually show up because of the water saturation in the mud and weight pressure as compressed. So I think that they did pretty good in showing that little detail. Just wanted to point that out you guys said it didn’t make sense but it actually did
@@feenux09 it would just be water. If you ever see water logged ground I suggest you try walking on it. It is very common in humid areas, and it is a pretty weird feeling to walk on it.
@@zachswain2196 it depends on the soil, though. Lose top soil or a lot of sand content would allow water to splash up, whereas loam would rather squeeze out from under the foot like wet mud without much splash. I think the original shot was in between the possibility and doesnt make much sense, it was basically a compacted dirt road that should just have water standing or running on it or a lot of mud depending on how long it was rained on.
@@feenux09 think of the mud like a piece of cloth, if you put pressure on it water will squeeze out and since the t-rex is so heavy a lot more water would come out.
I think you nailed the lighting/render/compositing aspects, but aside from time and budget the original Jurassic Park artists consulted extensively with paleontologists (and not just Jack Horner, the official consultant) - the design work and sculpting of the dinosaurs was done with frequent consultation with dinosaur anatomy specialists, and the rigging and motion were done with a more realistic eye towards how real animals move. Of course Clint (who's plantigrade) was never going to move like a digitigrade 5-ton dinosaur, but choices made for the position of the neck, body and tail also contribute to your T. rex looking more like a toy and less like a real animal. Interestingly, this same thing happens in later JP and the JW movies - as special effects "improved" later FX artists explicitly moved further and further away from Spielberg's original mandate that the dinosaurs be as naturalist as possible, towards them being made to be movie monsters. I'd suggest this is as responsible as anything for why audiences don't believe more recent JP/JW dinosaurs look real.
Yeah, I made a similar comment about dinosaurs being animals that walk on their toes instead of the sole of the foot. I think having Clint walk on a plank or beam that is a few inches high might have kept him far enough off the ground to simulate a T. Rex leg. Maybe it would have avoided the problem of the CGI T. Rex putting his foot through the ground.
There have been a lot of these episodes lately where the idea of "we need an excuse to bring Clint back for a day" pops up, and honestly I am 100% okay with that.
No offense to the Corridor Crew, but Steve Williams' original T-Rex demo far surpasses this modern recreation! He definitely deserves way more recognition for what he and his team did for VFX. The fact that he was able to create a demo T-Rex so well that it convinced Steven Spielberg to start using CGI is amazing and that it still holds up today over things created with extremely advanced technology.
5:26 "The challenges they faced back then are easy today. The challenges we face today came as second nature to these artists because they were top-tier artists." This is such an important thing. Todays tools are so much more powerful and accessible, but the required knowledge, artistry, and expertise to deliver a result that will stand the test of time has not diminished. It's also why I love breakdowns like this; it's an opportunity to learn from the greatest artists and experts that have ever been in the industry, and carry some of that knowledge forward. Having accessible records like this is so incredible and empowering. Plus we get so see Clint give his best Thanosaur impression.
yup, thats why a bad craftsman aways blames his tools its one thing to not have technology available to you, but its aways possible to do amazing work when your workspace is limited
@@BoxxyFan Did you not watch the end of the video? they said "we werent trying to make a better VFX or something in less time, it was to celebrate the artistic skill that went into making Jurassic Park movie so much more went into those sequences and pressing buttons on a computer" and mind you that the produces of JP spent 63 Million USD, whilst these guys spent $254 for 1 model, they didnt spent months making an entire robot skeleton of a T-Rex
Two things: 1. This was fascinating, because I know very little about how to do VFX and I love watching how crazy easy people like you guys make it look, and how much thought goes into everything, like where light should be bouncing and things like that. It takes an incredible amount of consideration. 2. Now, here’s where I get brutal. The finished shot of the T-Rex walking by the Jeep made me feel like I was watching one of those stop-motion Christmas movies, albeit with better scenery. The T-Rex was just so bad.
It does look like Ray Harryhausen stop-motion. I think it looks like a real object that's really in front of a camera - but it looks like a real *puppet*, not a real animal.
As an animator and an avid dinosaur enthusiast, one of the things that breaks it for me is the way the t-rex moves, it's too stiff, the motion itself is rigid and shaky, dinosaur tails don't bend upwards like that, and the walk cycle isn't correct. They did try their best though for the budget concerned.
Crazy how you tubers who've been vfxing for years in 2022 can't beat guys using cgi in the 90s. The technology gap alone should've made them come out on top. They must not care about improving their craft.
You guys should see the 35mm open matte film version of the movie. It retains the natural dark lighting, likely the way it was originally shown in cinemas. In that version all the dinosaurs blend so much better into picture than in bluray versions - no additional ambient occlusion is needed. It gives the feeling this is how the CGI shortcoming were originally addressed. Bluray samples presented in this video should be from the over-brightened 2011 version. 2013 bluray is a bit darker and better with its deeper blacks, plus the props are digitally removed, but it has it's own flaws, like the unnecessary sepia color filter. The unofficial 35mm film scan can be found in the torrent world, and weighs around 24GB. Anyone even mildly interested should check it out. I wish there was a bluray version of it, as I'm not a fan of the 4:3 open matte aspect ratio (it switches between 16:9 and 4:3).
When you think it's a remake of JP scene with modern vfx, but really it's a trailer of new movie starring Rex from Toy Story. It's nice to see him more confident and developing serious roles. Crazy how good he looks in 4k.
@@redskull378 Phil Tippet and his stop motion team at ILM were originally contracted to do the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. The new CGI division felt they could do a more realistic version and animated a really quick TRex walking. That sold Spielberg, but they felt bad about Tippet. Tippet’s team was kept on and they actually created the Dino Input Device, where the stop motion puppeteers could move and armature and the computer would pick up that movement. It was and still is a perfect blend of all meets new.
I was so afraid this was going to be a pretentious “we’re so much better than them,” “bash on Jurassic Park” video, but it was the total opposite. Thanks guys for your analysis, and at the same time really acknowledged the love and devotion that the ILM artists poured into those groundbreaking FX, which in my opinion still hold up so beautifully, even after all these years.
It's amazing how they have access to computers that are 1000 times more powerful than the ones from the early 90s with fully featured and robust 3D modeling and animation software and it still looks like a highschool project by comparison.
It had that old school Ray Haryhausen stutter of stop frame animation of a rubber or plasticine model, and the feet still didn't interact with the floor properly which was ok until it stepped out from behind the car.
@@Brandfall609 Yeah they most likely actually walked completely horizontial with their body and used their front arms for holding against the ground when bending forward
The DOF of the camera still makes the miniatures look miniature. If you shoot with a spotlight a lot brighter than you think you need and drop the F stop way down, and paint on some surface imperfections onto the cars, then I think you can get rid of the miniature look. Also quick tip, use a thin coat of grease on the miniature cars instead of just avoiding getting them wet. That will give them the reflectivity of lots of tiny droplets without making them visible.
We were shooting at F16. Like we literally could not stop down any further and we had the spotlights at max. The grease is a great idea though! If we had more time we would've weathered the jeeps too.
@@SirWrender Interesting. I'll have to give it a try myself sometime. Maybe the car was just too small for even that setting. But the things you set out to prove definitely worked.
Ok you guys just blew my mind with the car being completely CGI in one of the shots. Like I never even thought about it when watching, I think it helped that the Trex was in shot so everyone just focused on that. It amazes me how well the artists did with this movie.
In reference to the whole tail/counterbalance thing, one mistake I noticed is that when the T-Rex is more upright, or rears its head, you still have the tail sticking up. The tail should have gone DOWN when the T-Rex's head and upper body was raised, because the tail IS a counterbalance.
Needed to make the T-Rex’s head bob back and forth like a chicken or a turkey. The bird-like locomotion in the animations is what truly sells those shots
the fact the claws dont hang as the ankle is lifted is a dead giveaway too. look at literally every foot movement on the movies and how they treated the chain of strength from the hip all the way to the toes and you'll recognize the pattern instantly
The individual toes on the Trex is the most obvious one for me.. In the Original you could see the Trex grip the ground and clench its feet while here the feet where like frozen blocks
I saw Jurassic Park in theaters when I was 7 years old, and the T-Rex breakout scene absolutely scared the living daylights out of me. I'd never seen effects as good as what was in JP, especially that scene. And you know what? I still haven't.
Jurassic world and fallen kingdom and dominion all have much better cgi and so do countless other movies that have been released since then. You're straight up lying.
I was prepared to make essentially this exact comment - having experienced the JP theatrical release as a youngster, I’m not sure that experience has ever been recreated again. That’s perhaps entirely subjective, but I think it is also a fair argument that, even by today’s standards, the VFX in JP is among the absolute best and most impactful ever crafted.
T-Rex breaking out of the enclosure scene from jp1 is by far the best cgi that has ever been done. Everything's on point. It's as perfect as you can get.
As a palaeontologist you simply cannot go passed the awesome historical shots of Walking With Dinosaurs. The 2001 documentary is still highly regarded in my field as one of the best depictions of Mesozoic life. They have a huge making of episode that I believe would interest you greatly. As always very enjoyable to watch how you guys work and I hope to apply things Ive learned in these clips to my own art on megafauna. Cheers
I thought that recently new evidence has come out questioning the traditional depictions of dinosaurs and other ancient animals. I remember seeing videos suggesting that they may have actually had feathers, for example. Is that not true?
@@orchdork775 That is true. Put simply, "accurate Dinosaurs" do not exist. There's a LOT we don't know about a lot of them and there's a lot we probably never will due to how scenario specific good preservation is, it's quite rare. That's where speculation comes in, a good part of reconstructing Dinosaurs comes with speculation based on what we know about animals in general, and what would make sense. For instance you have the T. rex, there is absolutely no evidence for feathers on any member of Tyrannosauridae, but you may have still seen some art depicting it with feathers, that's because some Tyrannosauroids like Yutyrannus have been discovered with feathers, so that's speculation right there. But which one is the correct depiction then? Feathered or scaley T. rex? The answer is that we don't know, recent evidence does point towards a T. rex with scales as we have found scale specimens, but those are tiny, there could still be some feather covering on the back or neck. We just don't know, that's the problem with reconstructing Dinosaurs, there's a lot we don't know, that is why speculation is so prevalent. But just because we can speculate doesn't automatically make that depiction correct, it might very well be very wrong. There's no way to be sure that we got the depiction of something right when we know so little about it and our knowledge about it is destined to change.
@@asaxena9921 Very well put. It's kinda frustrating to see people have such strong opinions on dinosaurs and their appearances, especially with how little we actually know about them, all things considered. It's fun to speculate and it interests me to no end to imagine these creatures in different scenarios but there's no real reason to argue about it. (On a side note - I really hope snow camouflaged T-Rexs with white fuzz existed, because that sounds extremely cool and adorable XD)
_Watches their scene:_ "Wow, that's a dinosaur alright." _Watches original scene:_ "Holy ****** that thing's alive!!!" Best way to describe the difference is, theirs looks alive, then you watch the original and... it *_actually_* comes alive. Phenomenal talent the original crew had!!!
As someone else said, you guys are proving why CG has gone bad--you're too focused on the tricks over actually creating realism. I don't know if you realize this, but the original animators of JP used real ANIMAL references, such as birds, elephants, and reptiles. Those were their major motion references--a human cannot emulate how an extinct animal moved. They wrote an entire book and did a documentary about it. As someone who lived through the hype of the novel and then the hype of the film and who studied filmmaking because of that film, JP was a lot more accurate when it came to dinosaurs because it followed the scientific information that was as advanced as possible at the time. That's truly why it holds up.
Exactly...an elephant is one of the largest living animals and look how it moves, it has weight...of course a t.rex which has even more weight is also gonna move in a way that shows its massive weight, and the 1992 animators captured that perfectly. Not only are these amateurs bad, but even modern Jurassic World movie CGI by modern pros fails to properly take this into account, and the big dinos move around like they weigh nothing. It takes away from the realism...they think just because it looks more detailed it looks more realistic....wrong.
@@BigSplenda1885 I do really enjoy the new JW films, but I definitely agree with you--the animals aren't as realistic as they could be because they aren't taking into account the weight, movement restrictions, and how they would actually interact with their environment. I am really glad they brought back more animatronics in the newest film, though, and I am so excited to see the OC again!
I majored in Computer Graphics Technology at Purdue from 1998-2002. We made EVERYTHING ourselves. Has Computer Graphics turned into programming where everyone just gets existing code online and tweak things a little instead of really knowing what they are doing?
@@wjsmithiii YES, it has turned into that apparently. Sad really...it's a symptom of our lazy instant gratification culture. What these RUclips guys have "done" is absolutely pathetic, but I guess since everybody gets a participating trophy now they had no shame in posting this garbage anyway
@031 Exuberant Witness You've really proven the point we've all made here, though. The current CGI is not co-existing with both the realistic effects and science. I can't stand the unrealistic portrayal of human beings in current films--flipping and spinning like they're made of rubber and never actually getting hurt beyond a small cut on their cheek, put in completely unrealistic situations where a real human would die (jumping out of planes with no gear and no goggles, jumping out windows or tall buildings with the superhero landing, and the like). If you're a superhero, fine, but about half the superheroes nowadays aren't mutants/don't have special powers and are just regular human beings. There used to be a time when FX actually made you feel the characters were really in danger, that the stakes were real. But it just doesn't happen anymore.
Wow. It's amazing how natural movement does everything in animation, regardless if its a spaceship of dinosaur. It could be a pixelated blob or a stop motion clay trex, but if it moves realistically, with the laws of physics in mind, it's becomes immersive.
One video like this doesn't prove anything, it just confirms your bias. imagine something like infinity war (Idk whether you like it or not) with just practical effects and 90's cgi, it would look horrible. Modern cgi reliant special effects and practical effects both have their place.
Actually the "puddle splashing" does make sense. It shows the sense of weight. A T-Rex would weigh tons and if that much rain would soak into the ground the weight of the T-Rex would realistically squish out the water from the dirt and mud. If anything it should have been more mud and dirt looking water that we would/should have seen. The water coming out from the T-Rex feet is too clear for my tastes.
Around 7 metric tonnes to be exact, which is roughly 4.6 times heavier than the Jeep in the scene. That’s a big boi, and all that weight concentrated on around 2.5m^2. This works out at 27,500Pa of force, give or take. Absolutely enough force to squeeze water out of mud
In movie, the scene is so fast going that you never get to details. And thats the whole point of effects, they dont have to be super accurate because the detail is only a small portion of the whole which you dont even see. So pointless to use time to make everything 100% realistic.
@@glassplanet5624 Average T-Rex would be about 7 tons indeed. But the T-Rex from Jurassic park was modeled on the biggest one ever found, at about 9 tons.
I think the issue was that the rex was walking with a heel-toe motion, while in the original film the rex walked more flat-footed and led with the foot tilting forward instead of heel first like a person would. That walking style the og rex had gave it the weight and mass it portrayed. If that is changed for a future rendition those shots would be A++. Other than that, the final product was great 👍
I think those two points are the main issue. The arm mocap was probably not usable at all so they gave up on the arms altogether. But considering the timerestraints they had to work with what they had.
I think Clint tried to replicate the toe walking but it got lost in the process. The greatest flaw I see is the hips, they are too stiff. There need to be quite some wiggle from side to side in order to convey the 6 tons walking on two legs. And from there, the two counterweights tail and head would have to swing in sync to sell it.
sorry no. so much is wrong. they have neck at the bottom the skull which is wrong T-rex had head like bird with the neck at back not base of the skull back hips and tail all should be in line parallel to the ground and in line with jaw. hips need to center over knees ankes and toes.. which another issues others pointed out like birds they lead there walk with there toes again look at emu or chickens. needs to be WAY more mass in the chest t-rex here looks like it its starving to death
The anatomy of an animal's hind leg versus the anatomy of a human leg is definitely a problem. I don't mind the motionless forelimbs, though. They shouldn't move. They're vestigial and useless. Treat them like the tiny arms of the queen in "Aliens": they don't move unless someone shows up with a flamethrower!
(For quick references, 2:39 has the original scene, 21:16 has the “modern” scene) I notice that while the t-rex in the original scene is always in the center of the screen and approaching the camera, the t-rex in the “modern” scene starts off in the right side and just walks by. It makes the original t-rex feel more menacing and threatening while the “modern” t-rex feels more like a piece of the background just passing by.
Note the original looks so much better that modern scene looks like shit sorry to say they butchered it so much if that’s what modern day cgi looks like wow great job the 90s crew back in the day
Everything in the scene complements the Rex. The Jeeps, the broken fence, high foliage behind her. It's a scene that likely went through tons of rewrites to present in the perfect manner, literally from writing the script and story-board concepting. These guys tried to pull off a similar effect with a near non-existant budget and a day's worth of planning(?).
@@demonicpokeyfruit9006 budget yes they probably don’t have the money for proper software and tools but neither did the editors back in the 90s hell we have better tech today so give those guys some credit movies like 30 years old still looks god dam fantastic
They tried a miniature version as an omage to the old ways people used to make movies like in the old Godzilla movies, They also had a small time and budget
I concur. As a 15 yo, I watched JP on VHS every night for weeks thinking how in the heck they made everything look so real & to this day I still can't tell what was CGI & what wasn't. Documentaries can say what they want but I really can't tell at all & that's what is truly wonderful about that movie.
I think this is a fun test of effects skills, obviously it’s not a real competition with the original but seeing your process is extremely interesting.
23: 26 - A pretty dang good render. > No subdivision / micropoly displacement at rendertime, I can see the polygons near the leg at 23:36 > Overall animation is garbage, no sense of scale or weight - something the original JP nailed (look at the shot where the Trex hits the branch when chasing the jeep - legendary animation). > Lighting and shading is nailed, however, which is the problem with ALL VFX movies today. They only focus on the textures, models, and effects, not the animation. > No motion blur. Try again?
@@nationalistfanatic6291 dude of course they didn't focused on animation, they had a guy in a suit acting like a t-rex. I think they did a good job for the amount of time they put into it, and i don't think the animation is meant to be taken seriously
The thing I love about these crew videos is it doesn’t matter how good the end product looks, (it normally looks great), the video is still amazingly entertaining no matter what
@@davyboy9397 Even the mainstream stuff post 2017 to me looks like utter trash. I think it is the high frame rates and HD quality of the irl footage. CGI is always moving more smoothly and consciously than actual actors and it has become more janky with time.
I think the main problem is that the dinosaur movements looks like a stop-motion and not fluid motion. And as you said, there's not too much weight on the dinosaur to be perceived as a huge, heavy animal. But for a static rendering, looks pretty nice.
we could easily make something better in this time and age, these guys didnt have the budget nor time to make anything better, their rendition was kinda lame too so u cant use them as a reference to where we are at now compared to back in 1993
i remember after i watched the Jurassic World.... i was like "dude, the cg looks corny on this compared to the first Jurassic park movie" that movie felt so real it scared me when i was a kid. that, i didnt felt on jurassic world.
It just shows that visual effects isn’t just about having the fanciest CGI. It doesn’t work if it doesn’t feel real. The reason the original JP is better than the newer ones is because it feels real, and they achieved this using a combination of disciplines. CGI isn’t the be all an end all. Films just look fake nowadays.
Also, the sole story of the film was survival. You didnt know if the cast could survive. While today you simply assume. Just watched dominion and every person eaten was an extra. Often on screen for less than a minute. So you had no emotional ties or development. No reason to really experience the fear the original film brought out in viewers. The original actually made you feel something.
@@treatb09 What are you even talking about???? Pretty much every single person who died in the orginals either was very predictable, was an asshole or was undeveloped and literally no one cared (you might argue 1 character but I'll argue he was predictable later). The main cast pretty much never dies, the children never die, it's very predictable and I love the series. To be thorough in my argument here is all 3 films: JP1: 3 Scientists and 2 grandkids all live, only member of the jeep group who dies was the asshole lawyer who abandons the kids, predictable. JP2: Malcolm lives, his ex lives, his daughter lives and the photographer/activist lives. Now this is where someone might argue what about Eddie? Eddie wasn't super developed, and both of his major dialogues were major death flags, first he talks about how deadly the toxin he brought to tranq dinos is to humans (a gun he struggles to use before he dies) and then how he was going to be the lookout and set up a canopy, which both physically and metaphorically distances himself from the main group of characters. First dialogue is about death, 2nd is him distancing himself from the other characters, super predictable, nice guy, but predictable. JP3: The parents live, the 2 scientists live, the kid lives, only people who die are pilots/bodyguards types who no one gave a shit about, also the off screen death of the mother's boyfriend who took the kid parasailing, predictable survivors and deaths.
This is why I agree with famous directors who made headlines in recent years attacking the way that “Film” is dead as the only money in it goes to marvel comic book movies entirely fake looking CGI. There are no real explosions. No actual stunts that put real people in serious danger. And the story lines are generally garbage because of woke Hollywood afraid if it’s shadow. Thankfully, a movie library of 80 years of great film exists. Enough to keep a person entertained.
The verdict: ILM artists did a much better job animating a Tyrannosaurus rex, almost 30 years ago. I really enjoyed the video, and all the steps that where taken cared off and explained for your animated test.
The splashes without puddles, I feel might actually, potentially, still be realistic, considering the weight of the T-Rex and the fact the ground wasn't just some flat solid thing, but sorta loosely packed rocks and mud; he might've just stomped hard enough to squeeze the water out of the soggy surface layer..
My thoughts exactly. The whole area is cover in water and the rain is heavy. That much water would not soak into the ground and would pool in lower area of the ground. Also like you said the weight of the T-Rex would factor into leaving a imprint in the ground.
I feel like bringing somebody in who understands animal biology and how things are supposed to move in nature, would help you guys out a lot next time y'all try something like this. Excellent vid and still great work! Love you guys passion for this, even breaking the bank for that model😂
this is what i think these guys don't understand, is the reason why jurassic park was so good is because it was animators that were in charge, not computer guys during jurassic park.. thats why the animation was so good.. it was stop motion animators in charge.
1000 points for effort. The original obviously looks better, but I was honestly expecting it to look worse in the end. And I couldn't do anything like this or close to this myself either.
I've always felt that a big difference between JP and the sequels is that in the first film dinosaurs = animals, but in the sequels dinosaurs = monsters.
Back in August 1993 I went to an AFI conference of the making of Jurassic Park in Kauai. There were several hundred people in attendance. The lead design team of the movie were all there. They showed us lots of making-of material including the very first render of the T-Rex walking, and also the CG jeep. I remember everyone gasping and being blow away when we found out the jeep was also CG. Everyone was also shocked to find out they used CGI to replace Lex’s face on her stunt double when she’s hanging from the air vent. It was all brand new stuff back then, and everyone’s mind was blown! Winston, Muren, Tippett, and Lantieri were all there. It was an amazing week! I was 20 years old.
The ENTIRE TEAM made some fucking MAGIC back then. It STILL looks better than EVERYTHING lmfao. It's professionals and subject metter experts all contributing, and making sure every tendon and pixel were faithful is what did it.
I think that says more about the VFX team than the movie in comparison to todays CGI and animation capabilities... I mean, even games have animations that looks like the film, both in cutscenes and in-game-live action...
Sometimes less is more. What I mean is because there was not so much high tech available back then - they had to be more creative. Sometimes limitations are a good thing.
@@Pelimuistelot also it was a perfect blend of real(animatronic) and cgi and both concepts we're done extremely very well. this is why jp1 is still the most realistic jp movie
@@LednacekZ it is not that easy, the guy eho made that dinosaur must have years of experience with monster creation. Even i am new so i understand the feeling of buying expensive assets
@@conorsvfx you would be amazed how bad you can make everything and it all still work well enough as long as the lighting and timing are right, likewise if you screw up either of those things the effect *_WILL_* fail to pass casual-parse no matter how many thousands of hours and millions of dollars you spend getting everything else as close to perfect as you can. sound especially has to be damned near perfect. erm, the timing on it, the sound effect can often be hilariously wrong and still work just fine as long as it begins at the perfect moment and fills about the right amount of time.
As usual, you do such a good job of explaining the challenges and the process, and just plain having fun with it. One day and the work of four people? Not a bad result considering that. Would have been absolutely impossible back then.
As with a lot of these Jurassic Park recreations, it's the animation that really lets it down. It's not BAD per se, but it's very obviously CGI. The arms are stiff and locked to the body, it lacks weight despite the stomps and it just feels off. With a lot of other things, modern technology can simplify the process. With animation, there's only so much the tech can do. You still need an animator putting in a LOT of time into it, and it doesn't seem like you guys had a lot of time to put this together. Looks good, though - the compositing is pretty spot-on. LOVE the shadow mask :)
Imagine this would have been the real effects in 1993. All this talking 'you have a T-Rex 😯' and then this creature comes around the corner. Pure comedy gold 😆.
After seeing the final shot created with 2021 technology I think its safe to say the Jurassic Park original is an amazing work of art, it holds up in my opinion.
Kudos to you guys for flat out stating that the original couldn’t be topped in this circumstance. Much respect to you for even trying considering how high the bar was set
I think it would actually be smart for modern animators to create rigs similarly to the dinosaur input device. It results in so much more grounded, realistic animation.
As an animator... That mocap was really awful but EVERYTHING else you nailed it. You should have just also paid an animator for 1-2 days to match the price you paid for the model. :). Btw, is there a way to reach out to you? I'll happily animate for you guys, anonymously, for free. I've got 14 years experience in AAA gaming. That's the only place y'all need to step up your game. :) No offense.
@@callum.jupp. that's 30/hour for a day work, which is pretty typical mid-level animator pay. Jr level animators (mostly outside of California) can be paid as low as 15-20/hour, as well as college interns. Any of those options would still do better than the motion capture dino. I was offering for free because it would just be fun for me and something like this would only take a few hours assuming the rig wasn't total trash.
I'm curious which Triple A games you worked for? I always wonder how being an animator is and how hard is it as a job. Also was interested in that kind of stuff.
Wow. What you guys pulled off in such a short amount of time is _really_ impressive. What a killer homage, mimicry is the biggest form of flattery and I guarantee you that if anyone that worked on the VFX in this movie sees this, they're gonna be totally honored to see what you've made here. Great work, guys.
The surprisingly choppy movement in the final scene kind of let the effort down; even if the mocap wasn't as "realistic" as it should, the model lacked mass or the toy feeling couldn't be shaken off completely, the animation there is what kills the mood. And I can't help but wonder if aiming at rendering over a single night wasn't shortchanging themselves.
This. I like the effort and appreciate them for understanding what made the original scene special. But they actually came up with a scene, that looks like if Spielberg went with the original idea of using go motion technics. And they could have used a free model as well...
One of the big tells that makes something look "Barny like" is secondary motion. The arms remaining static looks very unnatural and the tight, inflexible nature of the skin around the shoulders and hips are red flags for realism. Those areas have some of the most bounce during motion. All that being said, this does look incredible for the time that it took. You guys did an amazing job.
It also has its spine arched like there's a person in there with no tail to counterweight them so they're clearly bending over forward and struggling not to stand up and straighten their spine.
hahah I just watched yours. It's like Wallace and Gromit! It's freaking claymotion, man. Whatever parts you were missing from the full-studio work, those parts were important.
The biggest issue with the animation is that while you can map human motion onto a T. rex, the human needs to have a different posture. One of the defining traits of theropod dinosaurs (including T. rex and all birds) is “digitigrade” walking, meaning that they walk primarily on their digits (toes), with the calcaneus (heel bone) raised off the ground. Humans walk primarily in “plantigrade” with our calcaneus striking the ground with each step. In other words, if mo-capping a dinosaur, walk tiptoe.
"if mo-capping a dinosaur, walk tiptoe." It will still look unnatural. A better solution is to remap the animation to a new armature (instead of modifying the existing one as was done here). Theres a couple of different ways to do this, e.g. using the original armatrure to drive IK targets for the new rig. Using a solver to fill in the movement for the parts of the anatomy which have no human equivalent will look far better.
@@GW-ek8xp This is really interesting to me, do you have any more info on sort of translating the motion. Would the designer of the algorithm then have a large hand in the final design by how they design the mapping?
Also as already stated the body should be more horizontal. It should be more like --- but cuz that's an unnatural body position for a human it looks way more like \ which makes it super jank. Honestly if they fixed that and the toe thing it could've looked a lot better.
I just keep having two main thoughts: Every time I see a small animation 'flaw' (arms don't hang right, tail's too bendy, tongue and don't move when roaring, etc) it hammers home how great these puppeteers were. And every time rexy roars I get goosebumps and go "muthafukkin T-REX" (in the nostalgia critic's voice)
Yes, the arms really bother me. I think it's because I've been watching the channel for so long, I've been taught to see the subtle things. It's still incredible what they have done
The T-Rex ripping through the fence and stepping onto the road is one of the best VFX shots in history! Everything in it is perfectly judged and a testament to the less-is-more approach, and the movie as a whole is masterpiece of FX resource allocation. I think the camerawork in JP deserves a shout-out too. I know a lot of it is limited to fairly static shots or basic moves because of the difficulty of camera-tracking back then (though they went all out for the Gallimimus stampede shot), but the restrained camera lets us absorb more of the effects. And yes, almost everyone involved had a deep background in real photography, so it just looks better. Also, props to the animators at Tippett Studios, who animated the T-Rex road scene and the Raptors in the Kitchen scene via the DID (ILM rendered and comped the finals). I feel like those guys get forgotten, when they contributed so much in collaboration with ILM.
you totally underestimate how much the cinematography brings to Jurrassic park - it's not the cameraman that picked where the cameras were - it was the director - and when it comes to framing a shot? he's a master. No amount of CGI is going to make up for poor framing.
that and when they brought up the water from the feet of the t-rex being unrealistic from no puddle, i always thought it was due to the fact that the t-rex displaces the ground and makes puddles itself on soft ground during the rain due to its weight
I agree. Also, I love the fact that there was no music playing during the T-Rex attack. It made it more realistic. Music is overused often and it tries to force an emotion on a scene which ruins it.
This is just another reason to admit how good they were with that old movie. Even now when everything is automated (model, render quality, hdri, jeep scan) they still can’t really achieve same level.
They could have if they put more than a day into the shot. 90% of what we see from Corridor is their capabilities on a strict schedule. If you gave the a month to do this shot, it would probably look better than the original.
@@Peron1-MC and if I only look at the song names of Justin Biebers first album then the entire album is great. It´s a video, if it doesn´t look good in motion it´s bad.
@@ItsWarFilms all im saying is that alot of people are saying the vfx are shit but thats not the case. the compositing is basically flawless. its just that they only had motion capture data for the animation. also they are just showing how you can recreate the shot in a couple of days. its not a full blown production. i dont get where the hate comes from. they litterally say that the animation is kinda barney looking in the fucking video. they know its janky.
@Peniley Majorey youre saying that just because a couple of guys couldnt deliver a houndred million dollar weta grade animation in a couple of days for their second channel, they dont deserve or have the knowledge to talk about why vfx effects are good or bad. give me a break. they even acknowledge the fact that the animation is kinda ”barney like” aka janky. they could have probebly found a trex walkcycle animation but thought it was more fun to have clint do the capture suit for it. the composition is basically flawless if you pause at any time in the 10 second short clip.
16:30 Without blameing your work, I think this is not the best solution. The point is, a tail is not a string under tension, but a tool to keep balance. The best reference would prb. be a cat (in huge) or a comodo dragon (thats probably better reference). Idk if there is a easy tool to use to simulate this, but just think about it.
Overall I think it’s good, but I feel like the way Trex lean down and roar is a bit stiff, if they moved the body forward a little when it’s leaning down will be better. Clearly they know it’s not better and they did say that, if they take more time to do it I’m sure it’s gonna be great
It seems like a good quick fix but yeah, that'll be it. I don't think putting a mocap suit on a cat would be particularly good for your health in the long run though.
Thank you, when they were animating the tail I was losing my mind lol. Tails aren't there just to look cool, they're a tool to keep balance and stay stabilized. Having it jerk around like that would likely cause the T-rex to fall over. Not to mention the modeled was standing more upright than it should have been, it was like a mis of what we used to think dinosaurs looked like and what we understand them to look like now. I dont want to come off like I'm sitting on these guys, I just watch enough youtube channels that talk about dinosaurs to know what looks right and what doesn't, everything else was great but that dinosaur was super janky lol.
This goes to show how far ahead of it's time Jurassic Park was. It still remains my greatest cinema experience. I was so lucky to have had the privilege to watch it in theatre.
I didn’t see it in theater in 93 because I was 5 and my parents were Uber religious at the time. When it hit imax 3D many years ago I went the day of. Best film experience of my life. Incredible film on the big screen.
Theaters fucking suck. My home setup is way better, and I can even pause the movie to take a bathroom break or eat popcorn that costs 50 cents instead of $15.
Honestly, I can't get over how incredibly good that shot looks without the Trex. Like if extreme indy filmmakers needed an establishing shot but had no location- look what they can do with a couple of toys. This should be an inspiration to anyone thinking about making films.
After this came out on video, I paused at the credits where it said who did the most of the T-Rex animations. At 22 I was just getting crazy about CGI so I actually called ILM from Canada and asked to talk to Steve Williams. He actually answered and I asked him for advice on how to get into things. Where to go to school. etc. He literally put me on hold and went to collect some information for me. I was worried he wouldn't come back but he did and he gave me the names and contact info of I think 3 different schools. It was super generous of him! Unfortunately all the schools were out of my reach at the time so I never got there but I still dabble in 3D today!
Thanks. Apparently a while later he got into trouble somehow at ILM and was let go so started his own VFX company called Banned from the Ranch. They lasted a few years but eventually faded away. No idea what actually happened at all.
Nearly 30 years later, this just highlights how good of a job they did in 1993.
It's hard for people to imagine now just how groundbreaking the effects in Jurassic Park were for the time.
I had just graduated from highschool in 93, had been doing 3D animation for a couple years, and my dream in life was to work for ILM as a SFX artist. I went to see Jurassic Park that summer and I was absolutely dumbfounded. I went back to the theater 3 more times to watch it, just to look at the effects.
@@MrJacobegg what i don't understand is that how is it possible that we have almost downgraded on The quality of cg of these massive movies as example Hobbit trilogy.
@@MrJacobegg i was 8 XD
@@tomtomi93 I think it’s mostly good decisions regarding what to show and what to hide, what to do practically and what to do digitally. If you look at certain “making of” videos, they show the different tricks they used to hide issues with the technology. One example was setting the first T-Rex scene on a dark and rainy night so that we never got a clear enough look to identify it as a cartoon.
Well the reason it looks and feel so real it’s because they used a mix of both practical and computer animation
Your dino still moves as if it weighs as much as a human. As an animator I can see it needs more swing in the hips as the dino is shifting it's massive wieght between each step.
Yep, that's the first thing I noticed as well, the lighting is good, the model could be improved, but the motion....
Hey Pete, do you have a tail?
It's always the animation that gives way
And neck looks too stiff. Feels like head hanging from the stick. But again, they did a great job and the time, budget and resource limits.
Swing in the hips? You mean like those you do in your furry pron sexy walks, mr animator?
And that is the number 1 reason why Jurassic Park looks better than Jurassic World. The animation. The first movie really nail the speed and weight of the animals while Jurassic World ends up almost cartoonish with extremely loose and floaty fast motion.
This looks like stop motion, also just shows how good the original effects were, as this version looks like it was made in the 1960's.
It does! Very Harryhausen
The animation is laughably bad.
Movement is clunky. 1993 is still incredible.
This is literally fanmade, the original was a million dollar project that took years to make.
@@maxonite What is impressing people with this is that the JP technology is over 30 years old. With the massive leap of CGI in 30 years you would think they could not only match it but beat it. But in fact all they have done is a 1960's style stop motion. Which just gives so much credit to ILM and what they did 3 decades ago. It goes to show no matter how much CGI you have or computer power, sheer talent and creativity will always win!!. JP is testimony to this! Credit to the RUclipsrs for making this video they have just highlighted how amazing ILM was back in the day.
Your animators were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should!
Bruh facts 😂
you nailed it... corridor in a nutshell lmao
Best comment
Animators finds a way
Lol
All this did is show just how amazing the original VFX was.
Lol yeah I was thinking the same. This is good for just a couple days worth or work but it still looks like a miniature. Kudos to the OG crew
That's how their remake projects usually go.
That’s what they said at the end of the video. So timeless, you really just appreciate the care put into. I could rewatch the movie millions of times and still be just as shocked as the first time I saw it.
And how incompetent this channel is at making vfx.
thats why i loved the n64 console ,its graphics chip is based off the same silicon engine processor used in these early 90s movies especially the workstation SGI the likes of Rareware used for their 3d graphics and wireframe sprites
Well, it pains me to say, but the original looks about a million times more realistic.
Welp we never know what dinosaurs actually looklike
Yeah, this is so bad
They failed so hard that I want all 25 minutes of my life back. I can't take these nu-males seriously anymore.
The t-Rex had feathers
Only clicked on because in the thumbnail original looked better. Theres in the thumbnail looks to glossy where as the orignal looks realistic and gritty.
The jeep being CGI when the T-Rex is eating it never crossed my mind, and I have seen this movie more times than I can count. Mind blown
Mind blown too
Just realized thats actually a Ford explorer
same
I'm honestly floored at this realization.
Likewise. At that point the Trex is real so *of course* the vehicle is real.
This does an amazing job of showing us just how incredible of a job the original team did.
True. Very true. But this is terrible CGI lmao.
You guys understand they weren’t trying to beat the original right.
There literally constantly glazing it.
The team from the first pacific rim could probably beat the OG
It wouldn’t be rocket science.
@@BoyOfNatureOrNatureboy360 Would have been great then to get the Pacific Rim CGI guys for the Jurassic World sequels then...
Thanks for watching everyone!! I think the final shot came out cool, especially considering our limitations. It's by no means perfect. Having the mocap for the dino was a cool idea but honestly that was mostly just a fun bit for the video. In hindsight, we would've been better off manually animating it. But you know what? We learned so much! It's not about getting it perfect. It's about just DOING it, seeing what does and does not work, then adding those lessons to your arsenal of knowledge so that whatever the next thing is can be better!! That's how you grow as an artist.
Awesome job great work!!!
It’s awesome you can do this with the tech these days, anyone can try this, if they have the drive to learn!!
Yeeeeah your version sucks. Can't win every fight.
I think finding an animator or maybe even an animator who can also do rigging would be super useful to help you guys out :) seeing as you are doing more and more full cg stuff with cg characters
i love your work and totally understood the fun bit, and honestly the motioncap looks funny but there are a few specific areas where you can tell its human bones on a trex costume, which could've been its own video. (cgi barney) if this rexxy boy was to be a bit more realistic, I think the feet, ankle and knee joints would need to be reworked entirely. he lifts his foot like a dude and stuff.
good work nonetheless, the scene looks dope af
Thank you for establishing that the original is a timeless work of art.
Cant agree more
You guys understand they weren’t trying to beat the original right.
There literally constantly glazing it.
The team from the first pacific rim could probably beat the OG
It wouldn’t be rocket science.
I'm still blown away how that original scene is still 100x better than anything that came after it
Fr
That’s because is animatronic not CGI
@@martinrh76 the scene it breaks the cables is not
@@martinrh76 they used both. It worked because the animatronics and cgi were done masterfully by brilliant artists. That’s the beauty of what they achieved in the original, particularly in the night time sequences like this one.
@@martinrh76 how can you say that the paddock breakout scene was fully animtronic? Wtf?! So ridiculous
What continues to astound me is the attention to the “weight” of the dinosaurs in the original. The T-Rex feels heavy. It’s joints and muscles have to cushion it’s own weight when it decides to move. That’s pro level technique.
It's truly a masterpiece... At the time we thought we were just beginning with how great CGI could be, but honestly the more time passes the more I'm starting to think the climax was back then
yes. during the comparison of the t-rex in the 2 films, the t-rex we with the banner falling down on it felt so weighty, which wasn't in the one in the newer films. it's amazing.
"it is joints and muscles have to cushion it is own weight"?
Poor T-Rex, he's got back pains.
he's holding in a big dump
Its a she, tho
yeah honestly the T rex model itself is pretty close to the original movie, I just wish there was some the animators Either new that dinosaurs couldn't and didn't stand that way or had a way to make the posture fully horizontal.
@@KingofTheGojiras it was a time constraint thing. They treated this as a one night challenge, but if they spent another week on animation then they could have nailed it.
@@victor1w irrelevant
the original looks so realistic with the weight of the walk... masterpiece
Probably because of the animatronic they used for the film. Weighed tons just like a real t-rex and was soaked so it weighed even more. Easy muddy footprint shots
@@thatonestranger6992 yea i was watching video on it and the task to make that work was ridiculous
yeah, that's what top-stop-motion-animatiors could do
@fire edi Not everything from that scene was cgi. When the rex crashed down on the car's glass, that was an accident made by the rex animatronic. And I believe that car was a real one in that scene, Jurassic Park is a very heavy mixture of cgi and animatronics, that's part of what makes it such a good movie.
@fire edi I know that, but the scene with the rex crashing into the glass and the kids holding it up wasn't cgi. The animatronic naturally wasn't supposed to get wet but they decided to keep filming as it rained, this made the animatronic a hell of a lot heavier and basically made it fall into the glass.
Water splashing out under the T rex's foot when there's no puddle does make sense because the creature is so heavy, its weight forces the water out of the mud.
That aside, this is pretty cool on a low budget. :D
And it was done with a sprinkler on the original
Yea
You think $254 is a low budget? You could have 25 hamburgers for that.
@@EricSiegelPredicts compared to a Blockbuster film that is a miniscule budget
@@devzy793 I was joking.
I have to admit, I had really low expectations at the beginning of this video and you definitely didn’t disappoint! Your shot literally looks like ass. Good job guys!
Alright, Thats a little far, You aren't wrong though
HAHAHAHAH!!! So true. The movement looks horrendous, the street lamp is completely out of place.
😭😭😭
It wasnt even close.
Ive seen better animation in stop motion movies and even fan-made stop motion with toys. Heck even i did better visual work as a 10 year old with my Jurassic Park toys in the garden and an oldschool camera.
Lmao so mean
The puddles WOULD actually show up because of the water saturation in the mud and weight pressure as compressed. So I think that they did pretty good in showing that little detail. Just wanted to point that out you guys said it didn’t make sense but it actually did
i wanted to say something similar. glad someone said it better than i would have haha.
I think it would be more like mud though, not just water x) but yeah, that also helps sell the weight of the trex
@@feenux09 it would just be water. If you ever see water logged ground I suggest you try walking on it. It is very common in humid areas, and it is a pretty weird feeling to walk on it.
@@zachswain2196 it depends on the soil, though. Lose top soil or a lot of sand content would allow water to splash up, whereas loam would rather squeeze out from under the foot like wet mud without much splash. I think the original shot was in between the possibility and doesnt make much sense, it was basically a compacted dirt road that should just have water standing or running on it or a lot of mud depending on how long it was rained on.
@@feenux09 think of the mud like a piece of cloth, if you put pressure on it water will squeeze out and since the t-rex is so heavy a lot more water would come out.
I think you nailed the lighting/render/compositing aspects, but aside from time and budget the original Jurassic Park artists consulted extensively with paleontologists (and not just Jack Horner, the official consultant) - the design work and sculpting of the dinosaurs was done with frequent consultation with dinosaur anatomy specialists, and the rigging and motion were done with a more realistic eye towards how real animals move. Of course Clint (who's plantigrade) was never going to move like a digitigrade 5-ton dinosaur, but choices made for the position of the neck, body and tail also contribute to your T. rex looking more like a toy and less like a real animal.
Interestingly, this same thing happens in later JP and the JW movies - as special effects "improved" later FX artists explicitly moved further and further away from Spielberg's original mandate that the dinosaurs be as naturalist as possible, towards them being made to be movie monsters. I'd suggest this is as responsible as anything for why audiences don't believe more recent JP/JW dinosaurs look real.
Oh hey, it's Scott Hartman himself!
Also, the contact points of the t.rex with the floor are not right. Its feet look like they're sliding because they're not displacing correctly.
Most genius explanation on the internet
Yeah, I made a similar comment about dinosaurs being animals that walk on their toes instead of the sole of the foot.
I think having Clint walk on a plank or beam that is a few inches high might have kept him far enough off the ground to simulate a T. Rex leg.
Maybe it would have avoided the problem of the CGI T. Rex putting his foot through the ground.
There have been a lot of these episodes lately where the idea of "we need an excuse to bring Clint back for a day" pops up, and honestly I am 100% okay with that.
No offense to the Corridor Crew, but Steve Williams' original T-Rex demo far surpasses this modern recreation! He definitely deserves way more recognition for what he and his team did for VFX. The fact that he was able to create a demo T-Rex so well that it convinced Steven Spielberg to start using CGI is amazing and that it still holds up today over things created with extremely advanced technology.
I was about to write and then saw your comment, glad someone mentioned this
5:26 "The challenges they faced back then are easy today. The challenges we face today came as second nature to these artists because they were top-tier artists."
This is such an important thing. Todays tools are so much more powerful and accessible, but the required knowledge, artistry, and expertise to deliver a result that will stand the test of time has not diminished. It's also why I love breakdowns like this; it's an opportunity to learn from the greatest artists and experts that have ever been in the industry, and carry some of that knowledge forward. Having accessible records like this is so incredible and empowering.
Plus we get so see Clint give his best Thanosaur impression.
yup, thats why a bad craftsman aways blames his tools
its one thing to not have technology available to you, but its aways possible to do amazing work when your workspace is limited
30 years later, these guys are professional, and it still can't hold a dim candle to jp... amazing
These guys are professional? Whoever is paying them for their work should be getting refunds lol. This looks so bad
@@BoxxyFan Exactly this and their Luke Skywalker Mando redo look atrocious! They're like high fiving each other for crappy work.
@@BoxxyFan Did you not watch the end of the video? they said "we werent trying to make a better VFX or something in less time, it was to celebrate the artistic skill that went into making Jurassic Park movie so much more went into those sequences and pressing buttons on a computer" and mind you that the produces of JP spent 63 Million USD, whilst these guys spent $254 for 1 model, they didnt spent months making an entire robot skeleton of a T-Rex
At least they were redeeming Luke's pathetic episode 8 death. What is this being compared to?
@@BoxxyFan honestly Tho, they be reacting to bad CGI and giving a lot of advice but the things they make look just as bad
Two things:
1. This was fascinating, because I know very little about how to do VFX and I love watching how crazy easy people like you guys make it look, and how much thought goes into everything, like where light should be bouncing and things like that. It takes an incredible amount of consideration.
2. Now, here’s where I get brutal. The finished shot of the T-Rex walking by the Jeep made me feel like I was watching one of those stop-motion Christmas movies, albeit with better scenery. The T-Rex was just so bad.
Indeed, it was far worse than the stop-motion terminator at the end of T1. Pretty awful to be honest, as far as motion is concerned.
It does look like Ray Harryhausen stop-motion.
I think it looks like a real object that's really in front of a camera - but it looks like a real *puppet*, not a real animal.
Obviously it’s not great but it’s still really good compared to anything else you’d see on YT.
As an animator and an avid dinosaur enthusiast, one of the things that breaks it for me is the way the t-rex moves, it's too stiff, the motion itself is rigid and shaky, dinosaur tails don't bend upwards like that, and the walk cycle isn't correct. They did try their best though for the budget concerned.
Crazy how you tubers who've been vfxing for years in 2022 can't beat guys using cgi in the 90s. The technology gap alone should've made them come out on top. They must not care about improving their craft.
You guys should see the 35mm open matte film version of the movie. It retains the natural dark lighting, likely the way it was originally shown in cinemas. In that version all the dinosaurs blend so much better into picture than in bluray versions - no additional ambient occlusion is needed. It gives the feeling this is how the CGI shortcoming were originally addressed.
Bluray samples presented in this video should be from the over-brightened 2011 version. 2013 bluray is a bit darker and better with its deeper blacks, plus the props are digitally removed, but it has it's own flaws, like the unnecessary sepia color filter.
The unofficial 35mm film scan can be found in the torrent world, and weighs around 24GB. Anyone even mildly interested should check it out. I wish there was a bluray version of it, as I'm not a fan of the 4:3 open matte aspect ratio (it switches between 16:9 and 4:3).
I can’t explain why the trex in Jurassic park looks so much more real and frightening than any vfx creature of modern cinema
...because it was real
Because George Lucas and his ilm team put in so much money and passion into cgi
I feel like the VFX one was made to be more aesthetically pleasing and pretty where the original was meant to be dark, rough and scary.
Because it was a mixture of animatronic and CGI technology..
Animatronic, the t rex is real
When you think it's a remake of JP scene with modern vfx, but really it's a trailer of new movie starring Rex from Toy Story.
It's nice to see him more confident and developing serious roles. Crazy how good he looks in 4k.
hahahahaha :D
Ahah now they need to redo this with a static Toy Story's rex, moved as if it was a hand moving it like a kid.
😂🤣😂
@Laura Brown Perish, bot.
This really makes you appreciate what Phil Tippet added to the original. The way the dinosaur moves really adds to the realism.
What do you mean?
@@redskull378 Phil Tippet and his stop motion team at ILM were originally contracted to do the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. The new CGI division felt they could do a more realistic version and animated a really quick TRex walking. That sold Spielberg, but they felt bad about Tippet.
Tippet’s team was kept on and they actually created the Dino Input Device, where the stop motion puppeteers could move and armature and the computer would pick up that movement. It was and still is a perfect blend of all meets new.
@Jake Folk True.
Don’t forget Stan Winston studios
He had one job though and yet there were dinosaurs all up in the kitchen. Like, goddammit, Phil.. People died..
They know the original is way better, as they said... this was to celebrate the amazing artists and skill that went into the original movie
I was so afraid this was going to be a pretentious “we’re so much better than them,” “bash on Jurassic Park” video, but it was the total opposite. Thanks guys for your analysis, and at the same time really acknowledged the love and devotion that the ILM artists poured into those groundbreaking FX, which in my opinion still hold up so beautifully, even after all these years.
That's because this channel usually is.
After their "better" Luke Skywalker deepfake video, I thought this one would be like that.
This was fucking awful lmao
Holy shit I had no idea that the car the T-Rex is chomping apart is actually CG. Thats the most mindblowing part to me lmao
And the kids were shot separately and comped in.
I didn’t notice it until I looked to the tires. They’re not good looking 😂
@@MrSolidBlakeGaming they are completely fine, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
yes lol
Yes!
that was the perfect setup for a 'spared no expense' joke when purchasing the t-rex model
I was expecting them to say it for sure
What a missed opportunity.
These changes you did shows me that only professions will notice subtle faults. Most movie goers will enjoys the movies with no issues
It's amazing how they have access to computers that are 1000 times more powerful than the ones from the early 90s with fully featured and robust 3D modeling and animation software and it still looks like a highschool project by comparison.
Ouch
ALAN GRANT: “The T-Rex’s vision is based on *movement*”
CG ANIMATOR: “The T-Rex’s movement is based on my vision!”
The weirdest thing about this one is that the dino ended up looking more like stop-motion than CG.
totally agree
It looks good but it walks a bit toooo upright imho
It had that old school Ray Haryhausen stutter of stop frame animation of a rubber or plasticine model, and the feet still didn't interact with the floor properly which was ok until it stepped out from behind the car.
Stiff
@@Brandfall609 Yeah they most likely actually walked completely horizontial with their body and used their front arms for holding against the ground when bending forward
The DOF of the camera still makes the miniatures look miniature. If you shoot with a spotlight a lot brighter than you think you need and drop the F stop way down, and paint on some surface imperfections onto the cars, then I think you can get rid of the miniature look. Also quick tip, use a thin coat of grease on the miniature cars instead of just avoiding getting them wet. That will give them the reflectivity of lots of tiny droplets without making them visible.
Really good points
We were shooting at F16. Like we literally could not stop down any further and we had the spotlights at max. The grease is a great idea though! If we had more time we would've weathered the jeeps too.
@@SirWrender Interesting. I'll have to give it a try myself sometime. Maybe the car was just too small for even that setting. But the things you set out to prove definitely worked.
spot on advice
Should've spent more big bucks on some nice 3d jeep models and used the miniatures for reference imho
Ok you guys just blew my mind with the car being completely CGI in one of the shots. Like I never even thought about it when watching, I think it helped that the Trex was in shot so everyone just focused on that. It amazes me how well the artists did with this movie.
In reference to the whole tail/counterbalance thing, one mistake I noticed is that when the T-Rex is more upright, or rears its head, you still have the tail sticking up. The tail should have gone DOWN when the T-Rex's head and upper body was raised, because the tail IS a counterbalance.
yeah that was the bit that ruined the whole thing for me, it looked really weird and unnatural as a t-tex wouldn't be able to get imto that position.
@@Vorador47 T-Rex: Become "V"
JP had the benefit of having a paleontologist on staff. (Even though they didn't always listen to him--feathers)
it got hit in the back with a truck
have u guys noticed that the rex has no claws in the scene.... :(
Needed to make the T-Rex’s head bob back and forth like a chicken or a turkey. The bird-like locomotion in the animations is what truly sells those shots
"Derp the Dinosaur"
the fact the claws dont hang as the ankle is lifted is a dead giveaway too. look at literally every foot movement on the movies and how they treated the chain of strength from the hip all the way to the toes and you'll recognize the pattern instantly
Interesting what people pick up on. The thing I noticed the most was how his little arms were almost frozen in place. Barely moved at all.
@@chaos_omega walked way too erect too
The individual toes on the Trex is the most obvious one for me.. In the Original you could see the Trex grip the ground and clench its feet while here the feet where like frozen blocks
I saw Jurassic Park in theaters when I was 7 years old, and the T-Rex breakout scene absolutely scared the living daylights out of me. I'd never seen effects as good as what was in JP, especially that scene. And you know what? I still haven't.
it's one of the most intense moments in movie history.
Right? I was 9 and I saw it in theaters about half a dozen times. My cousin fainted from that t Rex scene and left the theater crying. Bonkers
Jurassic world and fallen kingdom and dominion all have much better cgi and so do countless other movies that have been released since then. You're straight up lying.
@@metoo3342 They certainly have more CGI, but I'd certainly not consider it "better." JW and Fallen Kingdom look like video games, IMO.
I was prepared to make essentially this exact comment - having experienced the JP theatrical release as a youngster, I’m not sure that experience has ever been recreated again. That’s perhaps entirely subjective, but I think it is also a fair argument that, even by today’s standards, the VFX in JP is among the absolute best and most impactful ever crafted.
T-Rex breaking out of the enclosure scene from jp1 is by far the best cgi that has ever been done.
Everything's on point. It's as perfect as you can get.
As a palaeontologist you simply cannot go passed the awesome historical shots of Walking With Dinosaurs. The 2001 documentary is still highly regarded in my field as one of the best depictions of Mesozoic life. They have a huge making of episode that I believe would interest you greatly. As always very enjoyable to watch how you guys work and I hope to apply things Ive learned in these clips to my own art on megafauna. Cheers
I thought that recently new evidence has come out questioning the traditional depictions of dinosaurs and other ancient animals. I remember seeing videos suggesting that they may have actually had feathers, for example. Is that not true?
@@orchdork775 That is true. Put simply, "accurate Dinosaurs" do not exist. There's a LOT we don't know about a lot of them and there's a lot we probably never will due to how scenario specific good preservation is, it's quite rare. That's where speculation comes in, a good part of reconstructing Dinosaurs comes with speculation based on what we know about animals in general, and what would make sense. For instance you have the T. rex, there is absolutely no evidence for feathers on any member of Tyrannosauridae, but you may have still seen some art depicting it with feathers, that's because some Tyrannosauroids like Yutyrannus have been discovered with feathers, so that's speculation right there. But which one is the correct depiction then? Feathered or scaley T. rex? The answer is that we don't know, recent evidence does point towards a T. rex with scales as we have found scale specimens, but those are tiny, there could still be some feather covering on the back or neck. We just don't know, that's the problem with reconstructing Dinosaurs, there's a lot we don't know, that is why speculation is so prevalent. But just because we can speculate doesn't automatically make that depiction correct, it might very well be very wrong. There's no way to be sure that we got the depiction of something right when we know so little about it and our knowledge about it is destined to change.
Walking with Dinosaurs was pure art! Seriously, Impossible Pictures’ work is fantastic
I would love to see it (or Jurassic Park) re-done with feathers
@@asaxena9921 Very well put. It's kinda frustrating to see people have such strong opinions on dinosaurs and their appearances, especially with how little we actually know about them, all things considered. It's fun to speculate and it interests me to no end to imagine these creatures in different scenarios but there's no real reason to argue about it. (On a side note - I really hope snow camouflaged T-Rexs with white fuzz existed, because that sounds extremely cool and adorable XD)
_Watches their scene:_
"Wow, that's a dinosaur alright."
_Watches original scene:_
"Holy ****** that thing's alive!!!"
Best way to describe the difference is, theirs looks alive, then you watch the original and... it *_actually_* comes alive. Phenomenal talent the original crew had!!!
*shit
What's with the cringey self-censoring?
You wanna gold star from mommy for being a good boy...? oÔ
As someone else said, you guys are proving why CG has gone bad--you're too focused on the tricks over actually creating realism. I don't know if you realize this, but the original animators of JP used real ANIMAL references, such as birds, elephants, and reptiles. Those were their major motion references--a human cannot emulate how an extinct animal moved. They wrote an entire book and did a documentary about it. As someone who lived through the hype of the novel and then the hype of the film and who studied filmmaking because of that film, JP was a lot more accurate when it came to dinosaurs because it followed the scientific information that was as advanced as possible at the time. That's truly why it holds up.
Exactly...an elephant is one of the largest living animals and look how it moves, it has weight...of course a t.rex which has even more weight is also gonna move in a way that shows its massive weight, and the 1992 animators captured that perfectly. Not only are these amateurs bad, but even modern Jurassic World movie CGI by modern pros fails to properly take this into account, and the big dinos move around like they weigh nothing. It takes away from the realism...they think just because it looks more detailed it looks more realistic....wrong.
@@BigSplenda1885 I do really enjoy the new JW films, but I definitely agree with you--the animals aren't as realistic as they could be because they aren't taking into account the weight, movement restrictions, and how they would actually interact with their environment. I am really glad they brought back more animatronics in the newest film, though, and I am so excited to see the OC again!
I majored in Computer Graphics Technology at Purdue from 1998-2002. We made EVERYTHING ourselves. Has Computer Graphics turned into programming where everyone just gets existing code online and tweak things a little instead of really knowing what they are doing?
@@wjsmithiii YES, it has turned into that apparently. Sad really...it's a symptom of our lazy instant gratification culture. What these RUclips guys have "done" is absolutely pathetic, but I guess since everybody gets a participating trophy now they had no shame in posting this garbage anyway
@031 Exuberant Witness You've really proven the point we've all made here, though. The current CGI is not co-existing with both the realistic effects and science. I can't stand the unrealistic portrayal of human beings in current films--flipping and spinning like they're made of rubber and never actually getting hurt beyond a small cut on their cheek, put in completely unrealistic situations where a real human would die (jumping out of planes with no gear and no goggles, jumping out windows or tall buildings with the superhero landing, and the like). If you're a superhero, fine, but about half the superheroes nowadays aren't mutants/don't have special powers and are just regular human beings. There used to be a time when FX actually made you feel the characters were really in danger, that the stakes were real. But it just doesn't happen anymore.
Wow. It's amazing how natural movement does everything in animation, regardless if its a spaceship of dinosaur. It could be a pixelated blob or a stop motion clay trex, but if it moves realistically, with the laws of physics in mind, it's becomes immersive.
Good work, you proved that over-reliance on CGI has moved special effects backwards since the 90s.
That might explain why I found the older movies a bit better than recent ones.
@@mikoto7693 I think that's largely down to the Jurassic World movies being fucking atrocious.
I mean this is pretty much common knowledge for the past decade
One video like this doesn't prove anything, it just confirms your bias.
imagine something like infinity war (Idk whether you like it or not) with just practical effects and 90's cgi, it would look horrible.
Modern cgi reliant special effects and practical effects both have their place.
@@Blisterdude123 the movies look fine its just nostalgia
Actually the "puddle splashing" does make sense. It shows the sense of weight. A T-Rex would weigh tons and if that much rain would soak into the ground the weight of the T-Rex would realistically squish out the water from the dirt and mud. If anything it should have been more mud and dirt looking water that we would/should have seen. The water coming out from the T-Rex feet is too clear for my tastes.
Around 7 metric tonnes to be exact, which is roughly 4.6 times heavier than the Jeep in the scene. That’s a big boi, and all that weight concentrated on around 2.5m^2. This works out at 27,500Pa of force, give or take. Absolutely enough force to squeeze water out of mud
In movie, the scene is so fast going that you never get to details. And thats the whole point of effects, they dont have to be super accurate because the detail is only a small portion of the whole which you dont even see. So pointless to use time to make everything 100% realistic.
small things like 'weight', 'shadows', etc. helps sell a CG model so well when it visually is noticable :3
@@glassplanet5624 Average T-Rex would be about 7 tons indeed. But the T-Rex from Jurassic park was modeled on the biggest one ever found, at about 9 tons.
@@basmca1 So even more true.
Idk why but by seeing this i had the "When you try your best but you don't succeed." music in my head...
I think the issue was that the rex was walking with a heel-toe motion, while in the original film the rex walked more flat-footed and led with the foot tilting forward instead of heel first like a person would. That walking style the og rex had gave it the weight and mass it portrayed. If that is changed for a future rendition those shots would be A++. Other than that, the final product was great 👍
The rigid arms are very distracting.
I think those two points are the main issue. The arm mocap was probably not usable at all so they gave up on the arms altogether.
But considering the timerestraints they had to work with what they had.
I think Clint tried to replicate the toe walking but it got lost in the process. The greatest flaw I see is the hips, they are too stiff. There need to be quite some wiggle from side to side in order to convey the 6 tons walking on two legs. And from there, the two counterweights tail and head would have to swing in sync to sell it.
sorry no. so much is wrong. they have neck at the bottom the skull which is wrong T-rex had head like bird with the neck at back not base of the skull back hips and tail all should be in line parallel to the ground and in line with jaw. hips need to center over knees ankes and toes.. which another issues others pointed out like birds they lead there walk with there toes again look at emu or chickens. needs to be WAY more mass in the chest t-rex here looks like it its starving to death
The anatomy of an animal's hind leg versus the anatomy of a human leg is definitely a problem.
I don't mind the motionless forelimbs, though. They shouldn't move.
They're vestigial and useless.
Treat them like the tiny arms of the queen in "Aliens": they don't move unless someone shows up with a flamethrower!
(For quick references, 2:39 has the original scene, 21:16 has the “modern” scene)
I notice that while the t-rex in the original scene is always in the center of the screen and approaching the camera, the t-rex in the “modern” scene starts off in the right side and just walks by. It makes the original t-rex feel more menacing and threatening while the “modern” t-rex feels more like a piece of the background just passing by.
Note the original looks so much better that modern scene looks like shit sorry to say they butchered it so much if that’s what modern day cgi looks like wow great job the 90s crew back in the day
thank you so much I’ve been skipping around trying to find it
Everything in the scene complements the Rex. The Jeeps, the broken fence, high foliage behind her. It's a scene that likely went through tons of rewrites to present in the perfect manner, literally from writing the script and story-board concepting. These guys tried to pull off a similar effect with a near non-existant budget and a day's worth of planning(?).
@@demonicpokeyfruit9006 budget yes they probably don’t have the money for proper software and tools but neither did the editors back in the 90s hell we have better tech today so give those guys some credit movies like 30 years old still looks god dam fantastic
Oof yeah comparing the two the original played off WAY more realistic
"We Downgraded the Jurassic Park T-Rex with Modern VFX" would be more accurate title
They tried a miniature version as an omage to the old ways people used to make movies like in the old Godzilla movies, They also had a small time and budget
@@Jordan-se2ph and with all of that said, the final product was truly awful. I can’t believe they published this production.
I concur. As a 15 yo, I watched JP on VHS every night for weeks thinking how in the heck they made everything look so real & to this day I still can't tell what was CGI & what wasn't. Documentaries can say what they want but I really can't tell at all & that's what is truly wonderful about that movie.
Agreed
@@kyucklebeans 30 years later the original Jurassic Park still holds up
I think this is a fun test of effects skills, obviously it’s not a real competition with the original but seeing your process is extremely interesting.
Jurassic Park: Spielberg CGI Is timeless
Indiana Jones sequel: Hold my beer
Chocolate raiiiinnn
Intense piano plays*
So cool
haha what are you doing here? howdy
and we are live!
Your animators were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should.
Couldn’t said it better myself
Nice..
23: 26 - A pretty dang good render.
> No subdivision / micropoly displacement at rendertime, I can see the polygons near the leg at 23:36
> Overall animation is garbage, no sense of scale or weight - something the original JP nailed (look at the shot where the Trex hits the branch when chasing the jeep - legendary animation).
> Lighting and shading is nailed, however, which is the problem with ALL VFX movies today. They only focus on the textures, models, and effects, not the animation.
> No motion blur.
Try again?
Condors!
@@nationalistfanatic6291 dude of course they didn't focused on animation, they had a guy in a suit acting like a t-rex. I think they did a good job for the amount of time they put into it, and i don't think the animation is meant to be taken seriously
The thing I love about these crew videos is it doesn’t matter how good the end product looks, (it normally looks great), the video is still amazingly entertaining no matter what
yea this one was trash hahaha
Lemme translate your comment: the end results always looks like shit, but the video is still entertaining
@@Usario321 corridors stuff always looks janky xD
Honestly, almost every final rendering I see on here is very disappointing. But the guys are alot of fun to watch !
@@davyboy9397 Even the mainstream stuff post 2017 to me looks like utter trash. I think it is the high frame rates and HD quality of the irl footage. CGI is always moving more smoothly and consciously than actual actors and it has become more janky with time.
I think the main problem is that the dinosaur movements looks like a stop-motion and not fluid motion. And as you said, there's not too much weight on the dinosaur to be perceived as a huge, heavy animal. But for a static rendering, looks pretty nice.
I like these fun VFX challenges which you create for yourself, looks like a lot fun!
Fun and useless as hell
@@killhazardx its a learning experience for us aspiring creators
@@killhazardx these videos are literally how they make a living, feed their families, grow as artists, etc.
made in 1993 and we're still catching... goddamnit I love Jurassic Park
To this day it’s still my favorite film of all time .
we could easily make something better in this time and age, these guys didnt have the budget nor time to make anything better, their rendition was kinda lame too so u cant use them as a reference to where we are at now compared to back in 1993
i remember after i watched the Jurassic World.... i was like "dude, the cg looks corny on this compared to the first Jurassic park movie"
that movie felt so real it scared me when i was a kid. that, i didnt felt on jurassic world.
It just shows that visual effects isn’t just about having the fanciest CGI. It doesn’t work if it doesn’t feel real. The reason the original JP is better than the newer ones is because it feels real, and they achieved this using a combination of disciplines. CGI isn’t the be all an end all. Films just look fake nowadays.
Also, the sole story of the film was survival. You didnt know if the cast could survive. While today you simply assume. Just watched dominion and every person eaten was an extra. Often on screen for less than a minute. So you had no emotional ties or development. No reason to really experience the fear the original film brought out in viewers. The original actually made you feel something.
Now how do we get studios to see this perspective? Its like shouting into the void out here.
@@dani3670 No amount of shouting will be louder than the noise Hollywood execs experience from cocaine and hookers.
@@treatb09 What are you even talking about???? Pretty much every single person who died in the orginals either was very predictable, was an asshole or was undeveloped and literally no one cared (you might argue 1 character but I'll argue he was predictable later). The main cast pretty much never dies, the children never die, it's very predictable and I love the series. To be thorough in my argument here is all 3 films:
JP1: 3 Scientists and 2 grandkids all live, only member of the jeep group who dies was the asshole lawyer who abandons the kids, predictable.
JP2: Malcolm lives, his ex lives, his daughter lives and the photographer/activist lives. Now this is where someone might argue what about Eddie? Eddie wasn't super developed, and both of his major dialogues were major death flags, first he talks about how deadly the toxin he brought to tranq dinos is to humans (a gun he struggles to use before he dies) and then how he was going to be the lookout and set up a canopy, which both physically and metaphorically distances himself from the main group of characters. First dialogue is about death, 2nd is him distancing himself from the other characters, super predictable, nice guy, but predictable.
JP3: The parents live, the 2 scientists live, the kid lives, only people who die are pilots/bodyguards types who no one gave a shit about, also the off screen death of the mother's boyfriend who took the kid parasailing, predictable survivors and deaths.
This is why I agree with famous directors who made headlines in recent years attacking the way that “Film” is dead as the only money in it goes to marvel comic book movies entirely fake looking CGI. There are no real explosions. No actual stunts that put real people in serious danger. And the story lines are generally garbage because of woke Hollywood afraid if it’s shadow. Thankfully, a movie library of 80 years of great film exists. Enough to keep a person entertained.
I laughed so hard at the final shot that my chest hurts.
The verdict: ILM artists did a much better job animating a Tyrannosaurus rex, almost 30 years ago.
I really enjoyed the video, and all the steps that where taken cared off and explained for your animated test.
Wtf is a beredict?
It's because they studied real animals, from elephants to rhinos.
@@BOBBYT5751 Beredict Arnhold
The splashes without puddles, I feel might actually, potentially, still be realistic, considering the weight of the T-Rex and the fact the ground wasn't just some flat solid thing, but sorta loosely packed rocks and mud; he might've just stomped hard enough to squeeze the water out of the soggy surface layer..
That was my immediate thought as well.
Yeah I mean u can actually consider ground as a sponge .
THIS!!!!!!
My thoughts exactly. The whole area is cover in water and the rain is heavy. That much water would not soak into the ground and would pool in lower area of the ground. Also like you said the weight of the T-Rex would factor into leaving a imprint in the ground.
My thoughts exactly
I feel like bringing somebody in who understands animal biology and how things are supposed to move in nature, would help you guys out a lot next time y'all try something like this. Excellent vid and still great work! Love you guys passion for this, even breaking the bank for that model😂
Yeah its tail sticking up like a scared cat and its...bizarre posture killed me.
this is what i think these guys don't understand, is the reason why jurassic park was so good is because it was animators that were in charge, not computer guys during jurassic park.. thats why the animation was so good.. it was stop motion animators in charge.
1000 points for effort.
The original obviously looks better, but I was honestly expecting it to look worse in the end. And I couldn't do anything like this or close to this myself either.
I've always felt that a big difference between JP and the sequels is that in the first film dinosaurs = animals, but in the sequels dinosaurs = monsters.
Bro, so much genius behind this
Yeah, think you hit the nail on the head.
^ This.
True
Nope, the newer film act more like an animal, and doesn’t act blood thirsty monster like the old film.
Back in August 1993 I went to an AFI conference of the making of Jurassic Park in Kauai. There were several hundred people in attendance. The lead design team of the movie were all there. They showed us lots of making-of material including the very first render of the T-Rex walking, and also the CG jeep. I remember everyone gasping and being blow away when we found out the jeep was also CG. Everyone was also shocked to find out they used CGI to replace Lex’s face on her stunt double when she’s hanging from the air vent. It was all brand new stuff back then, and everyone’s mind was blown! Winston, Muren, Tippett, and Lantieri were all there. It was an amazing week! I was 20 years old.
It's still mind blowing because the CGI was really, really good
The ENTIRE TEAM made some fucking MAGIC back then. It STILL looks better than EVERYTHING lmfao. It's professionals and subject metter experts all contributing, and making sure every tendon and pixel were faithful is what did it.
Was Adam Jones there??
@@FortuneFinders don’t think so. Stan Winston was there though.
30 years old, but still way better than a little/hobby VFX team can do today. ---> what a VFX masterpiece
I think nearly every VFX Artist around 40 years started his career because of this move! ;-)
I think that says more about the VFX team than the movie in comparison to todays CGI and animation capabilities... I mean, even games have animations that looks like the film, both in cutscenes and in-game-live action...
@@pqsnet what? name one game that comes even close to the original JP VFX
I gotta say it was heartwarming to see them all so excited to buy the expensive model
Just shows how fantastic the old version is. Can’t beat it 30 years later with all the tech and talent in the world
Sometimes less is more. What I mean is because there was not so much high tech available back then - they had to be more creative. Sometimes limitations are a good thing.
@@Pelimuistelot also it was a perfect blend of real(animatronic) and cgi and both concepts we're done extremely very well. this is why jp1 is still the most realistic jp movie
Can't beat it it's a big stretch tho
You can. If you gave the original team todays tech it will be significantly better. Corridor does a lot of scuffed fake looking vfx.
Using the old animation, practical effects, and modern CGI, something truly superior could be made. Instead, Hollywood just uses green screens smh.
For the next couple of videos regardless of topic: WE SPEND 250 DOLLARS ON THIS T REX MODEL! WE'RE GOING TO USE IT!!
Someone is going to run into a T rex in Son of a Dungeon someday
@@flywan 😂😂😂😂
As someone just learning cg and seeing all the expensive models but never able to buy them I can say that was an extremely satisfying moment
well, you could make these expensive models yourself and offer them for sale.
@@LednacekZ it is not that easy, the guy eho made that dinosaur must have years of experience with monster creation. Even i am new so i understand the feeling of buying expensive assets
@@LednacekZ I would but I am in fact still terrible
Making realistic 3d models of dinosaurs isn't too hard. Animating them to look realistic is hard.
@@conorsvfx you would be amazed how bad you can make everything and it all still work well enough as long as the lighting and timing are right, likewise if you screw up either of those things the effect *_WILL_* fail to pass casual-parse no matter how many thousands of hours and millions of dollars you spend getting everything else as close to perfect as you can.
sound especially has to be damned near perfect. erm, the timing on it, the sound effect can often be hilariously wrong and still work just fine as long as it begins at the perfect moment and fills about the right amount of time.
As usual, you do such a good job of explaining the challenges and the process, and just plain having fun with it.
One day and the work of four people? Not a bad result considering that. Would have been absolutely impossible back then.
When the 1993 one looks way better and more realistic than the 2021 one:
Bro they didnt even think of making it more realistic to the dinosaur.
They don't have the budget what do you expect lol
Watch Prehistoric Planet bro, best dinossaur CGI ever
@@youruncle7204 there is a difference with a movie with a budget of millions and a 350+ dollar model
@@raph4852 Neither did they have the tools these guys have in 1992....
As with a lot of these Jurassic Park recreations, it's the animation that really lets it down. It's not BAD per se, but it's very obviously CGI. The arms are stiff and locked to the body, it lacks weight despite the stomps and it just feels off. With a lot of other things, modern technology can simplify the process. With animation, there's only so much the tech can do. You still need an animator putting in a LOT of time into it, and it doesn't seem like you guys had a lot of time to put this together. Looks good, though - the compositing is pretty spot-on. LOVE the shadow mask :)
I love the way Jordan explains his process in an accessible way. I feel like he'd make a great SkillShare teacher
Imagine this would have been the real effects in 1993. All this talking 'you have a T-Rex 😯' and then this creature comes around the corner. Pure comedy gold 😆.
After seeing the final shot created with 2021 technology I think its safe to say the Jurassic Park original is an amazing work of art, it holds up in my opinion.
Kudos to you guys for flat out stating that the original couldn’t be topped in this circumstance. Much respect to you for even trying considering how high the bar was set
You give them cudos for saying the truth?
Wow... Do i get cudos too for telling you how dum that is?
@@pqsnetyou must not have a lot of real problems in your life to get mad about that.
Remaking Jurassic park as a 1960s B movie would be a more honest title for this video. The music that closes the video fit it well 👍🏻
It’s RUclips what do you expect
what an insult to 1960s B movies,,,
No because they are using modern vfx
Seriously. Unfortunately, the T-Rex reminds me of a Rankin-Bass stop motion holiday special from the 1970s.
@@BPBomber 100% looks like something from Clash of the Titans.
The fact that Malcoms quote works so well at the end is amazing 😂
I think it would actually be smart for modern animators to create rigs similarly to the dinosaur input device. It results in so much more grounded, realistic animation.
As an animator... That mocap was really awful but EVERYTHING else you nailed it. You should have just also paid an animator for 1-2 days to match the price you paid for the model. :).
Btw, is there a way to reach out to you? I'll happily animate for you guys, anonymously, for free. I've got 14 years experience in AAA gaming. That's the only place y'all need to step up your game. :) No offense.
Give this man more likes so Corridor can see.
I agree. it was just the dino passing by the frame. that could be animated in like 3/4 days and it would've look far superior.
Dude, are you sure you have 14 years experience in the industry? I'm only asking as you think you can get 1-2 days of an animator for $250 ..
@@callum.jupp. that's 30/hour for a day work, which is pretty typical mid-level animator pay. Jr level animators (mostly outside of California) can be paid as low as 15-20/hour, as well as college interns.
Any of those options would still do better than the motion capture dino.
I was offering for free because it would just be fun for me and something like this would only take a few hours assuming the rig wasn't total trash.
I'm curious which Triple A games you worked for? I always wonder how being an animator is and how hard is it as a job. Also was interested in that kind of stuff.
I respect this channel for uploading their final work even though the 30 year old film holds up better!
Wow. What you guys pulled off in such a short amount of time is _really_ impressive. What a killer homage, mimicry is the biggest form of flattery and I guarantee you that if anyone that worked on the VFX in this movie sees this, they're gonna be totally honored to see what you've made here. Great work, guys.
The surprisingly choppy movement in the final scene kind of let the effort down; even if the mocap wasn't as "realistic" as it should, the model lacked mass or the toy feeling couldn't be shaken off completely, the animation there is what kills the mood.
And I can't help but wonder if aiming at rendering over a single night wasn't shortchanging themselves.
This. I like the effort and appreciate them for understanding what made the original scene special. But they actually came up with a scene, that looks like if Spielberg went with the original idea of using go motion technics. And they could have used a free model as well...
Looks like one of those blow up dinosaur T Rex they use for party’s lol
Exactly! Lol
*parties ;)
Best comment ever
LMAO
One of the big tells that makes something look "Barny like" is secondary motion. The arms remaining static looks very unnatural and the tight, inflexible nature of the skin around the shoulders and hips are red flags for realism. Those areas have some of the most bounce during motion. All that being said, this does look incredible for the time that it took. You guys did an amazing job.
It also has its spine arched like there's a person in there with no tail to counterweight them so they're clearly bending over forward and struggling not to stand up and straighten their spine.
The pores. Didn't. Stretch.
I was 11 or 12 when I saw it back in the 90s.
Think I was impressed? My oh my, what a marvel.
hahah I just watched yours. It's like Wallace and Gromit! It's freaking claymotion, man.
Whatever parts you were missing from the full-studio work, those parts were important.
The biggest issue with the animation is that while you can map human motion onto a T. rex, the human needs to have a different posture. One of the defining traits of theropod dinosaurs (including T. rex and all birds) is “digitigrade” walking, meaning that they walk primarily on their digits (toes), with the calcaneus (heel bone) raised off the ground. Humans walk primarily in “plantigrade” with our calcaneus striking the ground with each step.
In other words, if mo-capping a dinosaur, walk tiptoe.
Also, head to tail tip should be a horizontal line, we've got a lot of crystal palace syndrome going on here...
"if mo-capping a dinosaur, walk tiptoe."
It will still look unnatural. A better solution is to remap the animation to a new armature (instead of modifying the existing one as was done here). Theres a couple of different ways to do this, e.g. using the original armatrure to drive IK targets for the new rig. Using a solver to fill in the movement for the parts of the anatomy which have no human equivalent will look far better.
This reminds me of Ray Harryhausen’s stop motion animation.
@@GW-ek8xp This is really interesting to me, do you have any more info on sort of translating the motion. Would the designer of the algorithm then have a large hand in the final design by how they design the mapping?
Also as already stated the body should be more horizontal. It should be more like --- but cuz that's an unnatural body position for a human it looks way more like \ which makes it super jank. Honestly if they fixed that and the toe thing it could've looked a lot better.
I just keep having two main thoughts:
Every time I see a small animation 'flaw' (arms don't hang right, tail's too bendy, tongue and don't move when roaring, etc) it hammers home how great these puppeteers were.
And every time rexy roars I get goosebumps and go "muthafukkin T-REX" (in the nostalgia critic's voice)
Yes, the arms really bother me. I think it's because I've been watching the channel for so long, I've been taught to see the subtle things. It's still incredible what they have done
@@danielbrazier8095 for me it was 'It registers as wrong. Why does it register as wrong?' and then you notice a whole bunch of details
@@bWWd0 it was done in a day
They didn't have phones to distract them back then
@@MetaITurtle I honestly cannot tell if you are being sincere
The T-Rex ripping through the fence and stepping onto the road is one of the best VFX shots in history! Everything in it is perfectly judged and a testament to the less-is-more approach, and the movie as a whole is masterpiece of FX resource allocation. I think the camerawork in JP deserves a shout-out too. I know a lot of it is limited to fairly static shots or basic moves because of the difficulty of camera-tracking back then (though they went all out for the Gallimimus stampede shot), but the restrained camera lets us absorb more of the effects. And yes, almost everyone involved had a deep background in real photography, so it just looks better.
Also, props to the animators at Tippett Studios, who animated the T-Rex road scene and the Raptors in the Kitchen scene via the DID (ILM rendered and comped the finals). I feel like those guys get forgotten, when they contributed so much in collaboration with ILM.
@@SkeleTonHammer my thoughts exactly!
you totally underestimate how much the cinematography brings to Jurrassic park - it's not the cameraman that picked where the cameras were - it was the director - and when it comes to framing a shot? he's a master. No amount of CGI is going to make up for poor framing.
that and when they brought up the water from the feet of the t-rex being unrealistic from no puddle, i always thought it was due to the fact that the t-rex displaces the ground and makes puddles itself on soft ground during the rain due to its weight
I agree. Also, I love the fact that there was no music playing during the T-Rex attack. It made it more realistic. Music is overused often and it tries to force an emotion on a scene which ruins it.
The flute was foreshadowing how hard you will miss the mark with that one.
This is just another reason to admit how good they were with that old movie. Even now when everything is automated (model, render quality, hdri, jeep scan) they still can’t really achieve same level.
Yea, probably because they also used practical effects
They could have if they put more than a day into the shot. 90% of what we see from Corridor is their capabilities on a strict schedule. If you gave the a month to do this shot, it would probably look better than the original.
They could if they had the time, budget and team. But considering they pretty much did this in the time of school project this is top tier
@@leotheskyguy my thoughts exactly
@@CatholicaVeritasIndonesia The shot they were replicating was 100% CGI in 1993
As much as I appreciate the work you guys do and the lessons I learn from watching your content.... your modern remake was just terrible lol.
yea xD damn thing looked like shit :))))
the thing is its all in the animation. if you go back and pause at any time in the scene. it looks great.
@@Peron1-MC and if I only look at the song names of Justin Biebers first album then the entire album is great.
It´s a video, if it doesn´t look good in motion it´s bad.
@@ItsWarFilms all im saying is that alot of people are saying the vfx are shit but thats not the case. the compositing is basically flawless. its just that they only had motion capture data for the animation. also they are just showing how you can recreate the shot in a couple of days. its not a full blown production. i dont get where the hate comes from. they litterally say that the animation is kinda barney looking in the fucking video. they know its janky.
@Peniley Majorey youre saying that just because a couple of guys couldnt deliver a houndred million dollar weta grade animation in a couple of days for their second channel, they dont deserve or have the knowledge to talk about why vfx effects are good or bad. give me a break. they even acknowledge the fact that the animation is kinda ”barney like” aka janky. they could have probebly found a trex walkcycle animation but thought it was more fun to have clint do the capture suit for it. the composition is basically flawless if you pause at any time in the 10 second short clip.
16:30 Without blameing your work, I think this is not the best solution. The point is, a tail is not a string under tension, but a tool to keep balance. The best reference would prb. be a cat (in huge) or a comodo dragon (thats probably better reference). Idk if there is a easy tool to use to simulate this, but just think about it.
Overall I think it’s good, but I feel like the way Trex lean down and roar is a bit stiff, if they moved the body forward a little when it’s leaning down will be better.
Clearly they know it’s not better and they did say that, if they take more time to do it I’m sure it’s gonna be great
It seems like a good quick fix but yeah, that'll be it.
I don't think putting a mocap suit on a cat would be particularly good for your health in the long run though.
Thank you, when they were animating the tail I was losing my mind lol. Tails aren't there just to look cool, they're a tool to keep balance and stay stabilized. Having it jerk around like that would likely cause the T-rex to fall over. Not to mention the modeled was standing more upright than it should have been, it was like a mis of what we used to think dinosaurs looked like and what we understand them to look like now. I dont want to come off like I'm sitting on these guys, I just watch enough youtube channels that talk about dinosaurs to know what looks right and what doesn't, everything else was great but that dinosaur was super janky lol.
Komodo's drag there tails, maybe a better reference would be a running Alligator or something, or even reference the original Jurassic Park.
@@kingcosworth2643 How about a pangolin?
This goes to show how far ahead of it's time Jurassic Park was. It still remains my greatest cinema experience. I was so lucky to have had the privilege to watch it in theatre.
same here, during covid shut down my local theatre was playing tons of old reels and this was one of them it was a privilege to be there.
@@dab56 I saw it in 93. It was the first digital movie to be released here in Australia. The sound was amazing.
I didn’t see it in theater in 93 because I was 5 and my parents were Uber religious at the time. When it hit imax 3D many years ago I went the day of. Best film experience of my life. Incredible film on the big screen.
Same. I begged my parents to let me see it in the theater. I was 9. It is still one of the best movie experiences I’ve had.
Theaters fucking suck. My home setup is way better, and I can even pause the movie to take a bathroom break or eat popcorn that costs 50 cents instead of $15.
Best cgi/practical effects showcase. It has aged like a good french wine :) It´s not about technology, it´s about people and art/craft.
Honestly, I can't get over how incredibly good that shot looks without the Trex. Like if extreme indy filmmakers needed an establishing shot but had no location- look what they can do with a couple of toys. This should be an inspiration to anyone thinking about making films.
It looks great. I love watching people layer things to create beautiful shots.
I don’t think any film trying to be taken seriously would use corridor. They have an issue of making all their miniature shots look like toys.
no animation beats a real T-Rex they used in the original film :)
They’re extinct.
@@MickeyMousePlushShow1928 No shit
@@MickeyMousePlushShow1928 They’re Talking about the animatronic obviously.
@@MickeyMousePlushShow1928 WTF man
@@ItCantRainAllTheTime1988 OOOOHHH Well the animated part is still better
After this came out on video, I paused at the credits where it said who did the most of the T-Rex animations. At 22 I was just getting crazy about CGI so I actually called ILM from Canada and asked to talk to Steve Williams. He actually answered and I asked him for advice on how to get into things. Where to go to school. etc. He literally put me on hold and went to collect some information for me. I was worried he wouldn't come back but he did and he gave me the names and contact info of I think 3 different schools. It was super generous of him! Unfortunately all the schools were out of my reach at the time so I never got there but I still dabble in 3D today!
That’s still pretty awesome the guy actually took the time to talk to you and encourage you about which schools to look into. Much respect to him.
That is SO fucking cool! I teared up reading this!
Thanks. Apparently a while later he got into trouble somehow at ILM and was let go so started his own VFX company called Banned from the Ranch. They lasted a few years but eventually faded away. No idea what actually happened at all.
I use Cinema 4D, and this makes me feel really familiar and happy :)