The animatronics portions holds up extremely well nowadays, but anyone is kidding themselves if they think the CGI shots look better than modern productions.
Jurassic Park Looks Better Than Modern Movies
- Thread starter konka
- Start date
Yea, because back then, they usually had to shoot on location or build sets.
Minimal color grading and other post processing filters to make a movie look "cool".
Sometimes they used projection backdrops and it almost always looked fake. But then, sometimes they would use matte paintings, which I think hold up really well.
Miniatures still look pretty good too. Depending on how it was shot and lighted.
I saw a short video of Dwayne The Rock Johnson filming Skyscraper and a lot of it was filmed in a big green room lol.
Minimal color grading and other post processing filters to make a movie look "cool".
Sometimes they used projection backdrops and it almost always looked fake. But then, sometimes they would use matte paintings, which I think hold up really well.
Miniatures still look pretty good too. Depending on how it was shot and lighted.
I saw a short video of Dwayne The Rock Johnson filming Skyscraper and a lot of it was filmed in a big green room lol.
I just finished watching this movie in 4K HDR. I still think it's a nearly perfect film, but the CG definitely looks dated, especially in such high resolution.
Jurassic Park still holds up because the CGI use was both limited and often used to enhance the practical effects. Not perfect by any means, but still holds up better than many other films of the time.
A lot of the tech was also created more or less specifically for that film, but it was then used by other film makers who didn't really understand the power they had.
They read what others had done and took the next step, they didn't earn the knowledge for themselves so they didn't take any responsibilty for it. They stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as they could.
A lot of the tech was also created more or less specifically for that film, but it was then used by other film makers who didn't really understand the power they had.
They read what others had done and took the next step, they didn't earn the knowledge for themselves so they didn't take any responsibilty for it. They stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as they could.
Today i learned that i'm a blind idiot that doesn't know what CG is or when it's badly used. Like i haven't been watching movies for almost 40 years.
Come on people, i'm not talking about the invisible CG that Fincher uses in all his movies to aid his storytelling and set dressing, or other such examples. Nor am i talking about Fury Road, in which CG is mostly used as a complement to the physical action. I'm talking about Marvel, and Star Wars, and Jurassic World, and most other recent blockbuster movies which have very noticeable CG. Especially the way action scenes are shot in these movies is completely dependent on CG and, in my opinion, these movies' action suffers from it. It just looks fake as shit. I've watched Age of Ultron recently and that shit is really distracting for example.
The biggest problem is the overuse of color correction, image enhancements etc. that make shots without any use of CGI look fake anyway. I absolutely hate this in most movies with some very rare exceptions, because it makes movies look less believable. It all went downhill in the early 2000s.
This is most obvious for movies who span a lot of sequels. Die Hard for example: 1 to 3 look great, 4 and 5 look like ass.
People also watch movies on their badly calibrated HDTVs set to cool color temperature + dynamic contrast and whatnot so it looks even more like shit.
This is most obvious for movies who span a lot of sequels. Die Hard for example: 1 to 3 look great, 4 and 5 look like ass.
People also watch movies on their badly calibrated HDTVs set to cool color temperature + dynamic contrast and whatnot so it looks even more like shit.
Compared to the video gamey look of the Jurassic World version, definitely.
Jurassic world is trash with all of their cgi garbage..
Bring back the animatronics!
As others have said, it looks great for a film from 1993. And it's held up better than a lot of films that came out after it. But it doesn't look as good as films that come out now. And that's ok. That's not a fair standard to hold it to.
"Jurassic Park looks better than modern movies"
In what way? I never thought this film was particularly pretty looking. In terms of CGI? Yeah I don't know about that.
The animatronics hold up just fine though.
Looks pretty good.
Some of the camera movement is awesome in that film too. Part of the reason it looks so good, because its so well thought out.
example:
https://twitter.com/vashikoo/status/1010663126180642817
example:
https://twitter.com/vashikoo/status/1010663126180642817
Natural cinematography.
Modern movies love to mess with all those dials and over process the image until even practical shots don't look real anymore. It's got to run through 12 different filters and have the graphics department comb through every frame to make 136 touchups.
It's not just about practical vs cgi like everyone likes to repeat forever. CG isnt the problem in itself. It's the amount of control modern effects afford the creators, and the overindulgence of control.
Modern filmmaking has so much control, and it's so easy, that every frame now gets a shitload of plastic surgury until it hardly resembles what was actually shot. Every shot must be flashy with perfect lighting and everything in perfect position with perfect color as intended by the director with absolutely nothing left untouched.
The problem is that real life doesn't look that contrived.
That's the real reason why movies look more fake now. It's not just CGI creatures replacing puppets and anamatronics. CGI can look absolutely real and the technology has improved dramatically since JP. The real problem is that cinematography today is more contrived looking than ever due excessive control and the attitude of "we'll fix it in post."
It's no longer enough to set up a good shot on site with the lighting you want and perform some standard adjustments to preference in post.
Now you've got to up the contrast, boost the color, brighten the main character's head a little bit, add a shadow on his left cheek, dull the red on his jacket, CGI his collar so it doesn't look messy, darken the distracting papers on the desk, replace the tree in the window, add light shafts to the window, tint the window green, run the shadows through a blue filter, run the highlights through an orange filter, add a gate in the background, sharpen the image, strengthen the rim light on the arm, move the arm slightly down, apply a little DNR, move the background character slightly to the left to fit better in the door frame, brighten the whites of their eyes, reapply artificial film grain. On to the next shot!
No wonder nothing looks fucking real anymore. Modern cinematography is contrived as shit. And those youtube videos you'll find that turn the contrast down and add a warm filter don't account for the other 1138 changes that have been made to the image already. It's not as simple as "color grading." It's the entire process that's fucked in these types of movies.
...but it doesn't hurt to try. It's interesting to see what JW might look like if they just laid off the fucking contrast a little.
This was my issue with Fury Road. The color grading made the car chases look like CG, or at least heavily assisted by CG. The behind-the-scenes looks more real than the actual movie.
Movies are still good, but I miss the naturalistic look so much. It's mostly confined to indies these days.
That's the power of:
1. Using good film/cameras
Many people don't realize that film shot on a decent camera can still provide you with more detail in an image then many digital cameras, especially those from around the early 2000's and so. That's why you have many older films that were shot on film (IE Blade Runner, Suspiria) that can look downright jaw droppingly beautiful today compared to movies that were shot on digital much later on, and why 4k can bring out many details from the film that you never got to see before.
2. Using real world sets and props (animatronics).
Jurassic Park is a prime example of knowing when/where to use CGI and when not too, even in this day and age where CGI has gotten much better so many movies just over-use it, and sadly the ones that use a lot CGI can't be David Fincher, he's about the only filmmaker that knows how to use CGI well and how to blend it in so seamlessly that you don't notice it's even CGI in the first place.
I remember watching a little video about The Crow and the effects guys were talking about how they know they did their job well when people didn't realize certain shots were special effects.
Regardless if you are using real world props or CGI you should aim for the effect to be as seamless and unnoticable as possible, sadly most CGI is not that way yet, especially when it comes to animating animals and creatures.
1. Using good film/cameras
Many people don't realize that film shot on a decent camera can still provide you with more detail in an image then many digital cameras, especially those from around the early 2000's and so. That's why you have many older films that were shot on film (IE Blade Runner, Suspiria) that can look downright jaw droppingly beautiful today compared to movies that were shot on digital much later on, and why 4k can bring out many details from the film that you never got to see before.
2. Using real world sets and props (animatronics).
Jurassic Park is a prime example of knowing when/where to use CGI and when not too, even in this day and age where CGI has gotten much better so many movies just over-use it, and sadly the ones that use a lot CGI can't be David Fincher, he's about the only filmmaker that knows how to use CGI well and how to blend it in so seamlessly that you don't notice it's even CGI in the first place.
I remember watching a little video about The Crow and the effects guys were talking about how they know they did their job well when people didn't realize certain shots were special effects.
Regardless if you are using real world props or CGI you should aim for the effect to be as seamless and unnoticable as possible, sadly most CGI is not that way yet, especially when it comes to animating animals and creatures.
idk if this was an intentional THX 1138 reference but I caught it either way
Agree with what you said btw.
Perfect post.More on-set cinematography, less micromanagement in post.
Modern movies love to mess with all those dials and over process the image until even practical shots don't look real anymore. It's got to run through 12 different filters and have the graphics department comb through every frame to make 136 touchups.
It's not just about practical vs cgi like everyone likes to repeat forever. CG isnt the problem in itself. It's the amount of control modern effects afford the creators, and the overindulgence of control.
Modern filmmaking has so much control, and it's so easy, that every frame now gets a shitload of plastic surgury until it hardly resembles what was actually shot. Every shot must be flashy with perfect lighting and everything in perfect position with perfect color as intended by the director with absolutely nothing left untouched.
The problem is that real life doesn't look that contrived.
That's the real reason why movies look more fake now. It's not just CGI creatures replacing puppets and anamatronics. CGI can look absolutely real and the technology has improved dramatically since JP. The real problem is that cinematography today is more contrived looking than ever due excessive control and the attitude of "we'll fix it in post."
It's no longer enough to set up a good shot on a real set with the lighting you want and perform some standard adjustments to preference in post.
Now you've got to up the contrast, boost the color, brighten the main character's head a little bit, add a shadow on his left cheek, dull the red on his jacket, CGI his collar so it doesn't look messy, darken the distracting papers on the desk, replace the tree in the window, add light shafts to the window, tint the window green, run the shadows through a blue filter, run the highlights through an orange filter, add a gate in the background, sharpen the image, strengthen the rim light on the arm, move the arm slightly down, apply a little DNR, move the background character slightly to the left to fit better in the door frame, brighten the whites of their eyes, reapply artificial film grain. On to the next shot!
No wonder nothing looks fucking real anymore. Modern cinematography is contrived as shit. You could have a shot with no CG "characters" in it and it will still look fake. And those youtube videos you'll find that turn the contrast down and add a warm filter don't account for the other 1138 changes that have been made to the image already. It's not as simple as "color grading." It's the entire process that's fucked in these types of movies.
...but it doesn't hurt to try. It's interesting to see what JW might look like if they just laid off the fucking contrast a little.
Amazing how many people just on page 1 completely miss OP's point.
Hint: it's not about the CG in and of itself. I rewatched the movie a week ago and while the wide-eyed wonder of 1993 is long gone, I possibly appreciate the movie as a whole a little more every time I see it. There was something in the process of filmmaking before our post-processing heavy era that is almost completely lost today, and what we get today is just not as good.
It really does have the atmosphere nailed down in some scenes. Dark lighting with rain and lightning flashes make everything look great.
Boom. Of course the CG looks a bit dated, but this thread isn't strictly about that. It is the visual design of the entire movie.
Dean Cundey bringing the goods.
there's a magnitude more effect/cgi shots in blockbuster films now than back in '93.
also one thing to note is how a lot of effect work, due to how prevalent it is, is given to the lowest bidder and getting shit done quickly will be a selling point.
The animatronics is fantastic and is the sole reason why the movie holds up so well. But the CG is clearly outdated and sticks out like a sore thumb in every scene. Amazing for its time though.
Movies in general were more competently constructed back then. They took their time. Their were wide shots and long cuts. Everything nowadays is just about quick cuts, quick one liners, big explosions, CGI, etc. Essentially just 120 minute cartoons. Something like Alien would look like a completely different movie if it were made today.
You can't really overstate how much of a revelation the special effects were when it was originally released. Look at any other dinosaur film before it and you'll see scientifically inaccurate dinos, shitty stop motion or practical effects, etc. Nothing looked as good at the time, and it took like 10 years for CGI in most other films to catch up. It was to dinosaur movies what 2001:ASO was to space movies.
I had thought about this a lot after rewatching JP recently and the biggest aspects that make JP feel more real is 1) that the CGI was being used to complement and work in conjunction with practical effects and 2) Spielberg mostly used such effects in ways that hide the imperfections (ie the Rex reveal at night and in the rain)
With modern CG, there's no upper limit that the CG has to match. You can have that Rex do whatever you want, in any lighting, any kind of movement even if the physics are weird. While in JP, the goal was to make CG feel seamless with the animatronics and practical effects; they had to keep the movement and actions of the CG Rex feel in sync with that of the animatronic Rex, like they were one and the same.
A lot of the CG in JP definitely looks dated, particularly the close-ups of the raptors in the kitchen. But it doesnt feel jarring, because the movie is constantly switching between real tangible practical effects and CG, and our brain connects the two and accepts them as a single cohesive thing onscreen.
With modern CG, there's no upper limit that the CG has to match. You can have that Rex do whatever you want, in any lighting, any kind of movement even if the physics are weird. While in JP, the goal was to make CG feel seamless with the animatronics and practical effects; they had to keep the movement and actions of the CG Rex feel in sync with that of the animatronic Rex, like they were one and the same.
A lot of the CG in JP definitely looks dated, particularly the close-ups of the raptors in the kitchen. But it doesnt feel jarring, because the movie is constantly switching between real tangible practical effects and CG, and our brain connects the two and accepts them as a single cohesive thing onscreen.
Spielberg loves doing this. One-take shots that move elegantly between different framing. Every Frame A Painting did a great video on it
I rewatched this recently and was amazed at how well certain scenes hold up, especially the iconic T-Rex attack. Not the whole film though. Some of the effects haven't aged that well.
Yeah, I'd agree with all of these.
Yeah, I'd agree with all of these.
Also the lighting in newer films is often use to enhance and draw attention to the CG models. Like that popular image of JW:FK where the rex is roaring over the corpse of a carnotaurus that it just killed. There is a greenish blue tint, and you can see every last wrinkle on the bastard (wrinkles that often don't even need to be there). You shouldn't be able to see that much detail, and the lighting is a bit more stylized with a focus on contrast and other filter effects applied.
Whereas in JP, CG was tweaked to blend into the environments in the film and everything was lit more naturalistically. And there was a purposeful and tasteful use of motion blur and other fx. Also, details on the dinos were softened, like in that screenshot of the rex eating the gallimimus. Details on the animals, even in 1080p, are very soft, which makes sense given how far away it was. Aside from that, animations on the animals feel a bit more grounded than in JW - like you said, a major reason was to match the movements of the animatronics, but also the filmmakers looked at birds and worked closely with paleontologists (unlike in the JW films).
As you can see, there are two different reactions these screenshots are trying evoke. In JW, it's like "HEY, LOOK AT OUR AMAZINGLY DETAILED T REX MODEL. SEE IT? LOOK AT IT! AAAAAWWWWEEEEESSSSSOOOOOMMMMEEEE", Whereas in JP via the voyeuristic perspective you're more like, "Holy shit, is that a T Rex!?"
Ignoring the CGI talk, I just love that after all the shit that's happened, this T-Rex is still alive.
I love Jurassic Park, but the fact that parts of the movie hold up well is because of the cinematography and the limited use of CGI. I feel you could also say the same of The Lost World.
I disagree. The CGI in JP is bad. Just watched it, doesn't hold up.
Of course the practical stuff still looks great. And it still does in modern movies that do it. You can't compare the practical effects of an old movie to the cgi of a new one that's apples and oranges.
Of course the practical stuff still looks great. And it still does in modern movies that do it. You can't compare the practical effects of an old movie to the cgi of a new one that's apples and oranges.
Silly as it is, that UI was real. Some poor people used that daily, at the time.