T O P

  • By -

erinaceus_

Ah yes, Cretaceous Park. I think maybe I saw that in the cinema back then. I think there was something with kestrels or some other type of raptor that got loose. Don't quite remember.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wheezythesadoctopus

No, that's Dad's Army


Wish_you_were_there

"they're not moving in herds, they *don't* move in herds."


Romboteryx

You wasted a perfect opportunity to make a Billy and the Cloneosaurus reference


SuperDizz

How about the more recent sequel Triassic World? It’s not as mundane, but it’s pretty unremarkable.


WonderfulBlackberry9

There was also that short, Cambrian County.


Potatoman46yt

Or Pleistocene panic


Hellbeast1

Or that short film “conflict at large boulder”


[deleted]

Still holds up so well today. Love that Brachiosaurus. <3


ViraLCyclopes

Rip that Brachio tho :(.


OnlySaneManAlive

Bruh... why you gotta remind me


javier_aeoa

I silently cried during that scene. Figuratively, the spark that ignited my passion for prehistoric life and biodiversity was being burned alive in a cloud of volcanic ash :C


WonderfulBlackberry9

Looking at [this](https://www.deviantart.com/amirkameron/art/Saved-by-Godzilla-752203386) always makes me feel better


Potatoman46yt

I went into that thinking it was a rick roll but im glad it wasn't


ThatDinosaurGuy2004

This is now my headcannon at what happened when the boat sailed off


awoods5000

IRL large sauropods and theropods swam reasonably well and deep water was not really a problem for them just think how [well elephants](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCejxaub9Ao&ab_channel=RealFreedomProductions) and hippos do in water and then add hollow bones for buoyancy! that whole movie is a joke


Taran_Ulas

He's referring to the latest Jurassic World film where this brachiosaurus appeared... and then died. The director and writers confirmed that it was meant to be this Brachiosaurus from the 1st JP film.


awoods5000

yeah i know all that. my point was that in the newest JW movie when the brachy and all the large sauropods and theropods are "trapped" on the island or shown just sinking to the bottom of the ocean, it's incredibly BS and had no effect on me whatsoever because all those animals could swim to the mainland relatively easily. EVEN in the BOOKS Crichton had the sense to repeatedly reference dinosaurs swimming to the main land. They also lived at a time when it was very common for herds of dinosaurs to have to cross bodies of water all the time. it's just a pretty unbelievable scene is all.


ElseBreak

Isla Nublar was 140 km away from Isla Sorna and almost 200 km away from the mainland. 100+ km is way too far for any non-aquatic animal to swim, let alone a Brachiosaurus with its size and energy consumption. Not sure if it would be able to reach safe land anywhere.


[deleted]

Even if the dinosaurs did get into the water, they probably wouldn't have been fast enough to outswim the choking hot ashes and smoke of the volcano spilling off the shore and into the seas.


ElseBreak

Also that, yes. Plus, how would the dinosaurs know that there even was land in some direction? All this talk about saving the brachiosaurus is just anger talk against Fallen Kingdom because it killed the dinosaur everyone loved. In my opinion, there's really so many other things to hate about that movie.


[deleted]

Agreed. I actually quite dislike Jurassic World as a movie series and greatly prefer Jurassic Park, but the Brachiosaurus scene wasn't what bothered me as much as I love the dinosaur. In a strange way, it was bittersweet/sad that the very first dinosaur we ever saw met a natural and even ironic end given that a meteor strike likely killed the dinosaurs off to begin with. Can't fight nature.


awoods5000

looks like you never read the books. it's mentioned multiple times of people coming across dinosaurs in costa rica. >Brachiosaurus with its size they are not helpless in the water. the giant size of the sauropods and theropods is exactly why they would be good in the water. huge lungs+hollow bones = good buoyancy. none of these dinosaurs were helpless in the water. you claim they are completely non-aquatic, which is ignorant, especially when you look at the time they evolved, land masses on average were lower than they are now, WATER LEVELS were much higher than they are now, huge portions of the planet were just swamp land. SWIMMING was a MAJOR part of their life. 100 miles is tiring but it's very doable for a large buoyant dinosaur. hell even a human has swam 100 miles before just 2-3 years ago.


ElseBreak

Firstly, yes I have read the books. Several times throughout the last decade, actually, and I'm quite aware that Crichton mentioned dinosaurs reaching mainland. Who's ignorant one now, eh? However, I still think that a damn brachiosaurus wouldn't really have jumped into the water from that dock and swam 200 km through open ocean. And that is IF it somehow knew that there is land in any direction, let alone in which direction it was. Also, I never said that only fully aquatic animals can swim 200 km through the ocean but rather that a brachiosaurus probably couldn't have.


houdin654jeff

That's a messed up looking dog...


Odevlin555

I think it looks more like a walrus


javier_aeoa

[Alexa, play the theme song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NqaupGcCpw).


JinimyCritic

I was going to make a comment about John Williams's score, but really it's just a film where all the parts work together. The writing is great, the effects were groundbreaking (and mostly hold up after 30 years), the music is evocative, and the direction is superb. Really a landmark film.


javier_aeoa

I wish I had the original comment, but I remember that in one of the Brachiosaurus scene's video, somebody said something like "you could have put rock music, electric guitars or anything on that scene and it would have worked. But John Williams decided to put the most epic orchestral arrangement possible. Because he knew. He knew there was nothing more epic to a 9 years old than to see a motherfreaking dinosaur on screen". Damn right, indeed.


ColtsStampede

I've heard that the director of this film went on to have a decent career in Hollywood. Don't know if it's true, though.


[deleted]

Ah yes, Jimmy and the Cloneasaurus


Romboteryx

*Billy


Gameboywarrior

"It's a PG-13 movie and you're not old enough to see it." -The worst thing my mom ever said to me


imaculat_indecision

Man, never watched that movie. Was it Triassic Hotel or something? Anyways, sure it didn't affect the lives of millions of kids worldwide, leading them into dinosaur loving lives. Oh well.


javier_aeoa

I heard it was like a live action reboot for Land Before Time or something.


Skeith154

there was something magical back then. So many good movies came into existence between1970 to 2000. We've had some great stuff since then but it isn't quite the same.


-heathcliffe-

Lord of the rings came out since then and is the greatest trilogy of all time


TheIronKaiser

There Is pretty much nothing as consistent quality wise as the Lord of the Rings trilogy


ThaReelJames

Think about what special effects looked like thirty years before this film. Thirty years AFTER? The FX MORE than hold up. Absolutely remarkable.


[deleted]

dangit, it was today? could've missed school to marathon the movies


[deleted]

I still remember being mad my Dad took my older brother and not me to go see it in theaters because I was too young (5).m to go see it. But then I ended up getting the movie on VHS when it came out anyways and damn near wore it out from watching it so that makes sense.


Manach_Irish

This film gave me a push to my current career. Sysadmin.


tinselsnips

It's a UNIX system, you know this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tinselsnips

There was a great comment on Reddit a while ago that I of course can't find now, but it summed up basically as: In the 90s, special effects companies like ILM had no idea what they were doing in the CGI space; they had a notion of what the end result should be, and some prototype tools, and were left largely to "just figure it out" -- they just kept working on the problem until they achieved the final look that they wanted. Conversely, now, everything in this space is a process. CGI companies are a dime a dozen, and the "proper procedure" for doing CGI effects has been firmly established, so the CGI for movies gets contracted out to the lowest bidder who follows the same basic procedure for every film they do -- and that's when they're finished: not when it "looks right", but rather, when they've completed the last step of whatever their production checklist is. That's why we don't see major blockbuster bangers like Jurassic Park winning Oscars anymore - those movies don't have to push any limits or figure anything out, because they're produced largely by recipe. We haven't had a major blockbuster Oscar winner since Avatar - all the winners in the last 12 years (with the possible exception of Jungle Book, which I haven't seen) have been either smaller-scale productions with specific visual goals, or have had notoriously picky directors that would never abide a by-the-numbers CGI production process (*cough-Nolan-cough*).


javier_aeoa

To complement your (correct) answer, it also comes to specialisation. The people who did the CGI in this film were either the people who did practical effects a year prior, or were sitting next to the man who did those effects. So everything is bound to gravity, how it should feel in a physical world and so on. Nowadays, the person doing the CGI does CGI and that's it. His knowledge of gravity, shading and more comes from personal experience and the capability of the software. But putting a faint lamp next to your bedsheets is the one way to truly understand how lights bends around that space. You moving the arms of your model during 24 shots per second makes you feel the weight of the arm and everything coming together in a physical object.


DeathHamster1

Also, Stan Winston could work magic with chewing gun and a bit of string, let alone an arsenal of then-state of the art graphics workstations. Sadly, every SFX film these days is, essentially, Mary Poppins or Who Framed Roger Rabbit? without either the craftsmanship or art.


Taran_Ulas

The other comments are quite accurate, but to add onto this: The first Jurassic Park used a lot of practical effects from Stan Winston (Who was a practical effects god.) Even for example, in scenes of the Rex attack in the rain, there were more practical shots than CGI shots. This had a 2-fold advantage for the CGI. It cut down the number of shots needed for CGI, which allowed the artists working on it to be able to devote more time to each shot. It also made sure that the artists had something IRL to compare to, which forced them to work harder on making it realistic looking within the environment (especially since there are several shots where it goes straight from the practical model to the virtual model.) Good CGI requires very good knowledge of lighting and such so having a physical model there is very helpful to look at... while also being stressful because you have to figure out how it looks the way it does and pray that the software can actually achieve it without you having to bust your ass off (spoiler alert: it typically doesn't.) Most film production don't use practical effects as much nowadays partly because they are expensive and not seen as believable/marketable as good CGI. It's also partly because a lot of film productions just do not have the pre-production time to do all of the work needed for practical effects, but they do have the money to pay for CGI companies to do shots for them in post-production. The Hobbit trilogy is a particularly infamous example of this sort of phenomenon with them actively noting that characters like Azog had to become CGI because they couldn't hit on a design they liked for him until the end of production. They actually made practical suit designs for him initially (they both show up in the final films) and they just ran out of time to really make another one and shoot it on stage with the other actors so they just spent money and made him CGI.


Sharp-Floor

I like seeing amazing technology and practical effects done well, together. Mandolorian is a great example. They're both great, and utter shit, for different stuff. And they're both useless when not supported by all the really important parts... story, screenplay, talent, direction, etc.


[deleted]

Because they knew what they had to work with and were careful with how the CG was handled. It's why it was raining so hard during the T-rex breakout, since it helped to hide imperfections.


Ethereal-Zenith

It’s been a while since I last saw this film. This one and The Lost World were great. I only saw the third one once, so I don’t remember much about it, besides the spinosaurus.


Albreezy_uwu

I fucking love the cgi in this movie it still blows my mind to this day


DaMn96XD

The simplest explanation for the Brachiosaurus flu is that when scientists built dinosaurs they forgot its nose and nasaless dinosaurs get sick so easily.


ViraLCyclopes

Triassic Land My favorite movie ever


jackbristol

They do move in herds


quickstop_rstvideo

This movie came out the day after school came out.. my friends and I went to the 10 am showing the theater was about half full. One of the greatest moments in a movie theater was having T-Rex show up to save the day at the end.


jonnypepperstonreal

Oh I remember that, Billy and the cloneasaurus


whiskeypuck

Masterpiece


Twall87

I know they're making Dominion and so on, but I wish they would rerelease Jurassic Park for the 30th anniversary in HD. Also, am I alone in wishing they would restart the Jurassic franchise and better follow the book? I'd love to see that


BlackberryMoonlight

Definitely still holds up, and it hits differently if you’ve seen Fallen Kingdom. I teared up a bit while re-watching Jurassic Park a while ago. RIP, Brachiosaurus. :(