That picture has not been confirmed, and some people say it's a fake/photoshop from other sources of the previous movies. Interesting tidbit is that this raptor looks a lot like the old raptors, not the newer versions we saw in JP3. So interesting if it is true. I hope there will be raptors though, I love them.
Both of these have the same answer. No feathers. The people making the movie had said they will not be using feathers of any kind, they will not make them scientifically correct because a raptor covered in feathers would look funny. So because they look old might be because they looked awesome older.
Last thing I heard about the Raptor photo was that the father of the kid that posted it on Twitter was in serious trouble, apparently he brought his son to work and, well... I'm pretty sure it is legit.
It takes place on the same island as the first movie: Isla Nublar. It's not literal, at least according to what I had read about the new film. It is a theme park, so I guess you could base it off of something along the lines of SeaWorld...albeit a bit more extreme. As far as the leaked raptor photo is concerned, I would agree with Beagleman. In addition, they would not have taken the image off Twitter if it wasn't legit. That just tells me that it is a dinosaur used in the picture. But of course, once something is leaked online, everyone has it and taking it off Twitter doesn't really make a difference. But again, the fact that they did remove it, tells me it's going to be in the movie.
Raptors are in the movie... http://io9.com/teaser-poster-for-ju...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Judging by the poster, I think it might be like in the novel. Although the 'new' Jurassic Park might not have bred Raptors, the Raptors might be from the first Park who bred in secret in the wild. At the end of the first novel, this was pretty much the case (Although the island-including the nests-was pretty much destroyed in the novel, although the end of the novel hints the Raptors have escaped to the mainland). Although there's only three Raptors at the end of the movie (There were originally 8 according to Muldoon but the "Clever girl" killed all but two), maybe it's possible one of them laid eggs or something before being killed off by the Rex.
You would think after the mess of the first movie they would check the island and make sure they killed everything they didn't want. But I'm sure a nest or two could have been missed. I think they might show up because the scientists clearly have no morals if they are breading new types of dinosaurs. So why not breed a raptor?
There's actually a deleted scene in TLW (Also included in some broadcast versions) where Ludow says they've pretty much dismantled the island's facilities and killed the Dinosaurs. Speaking of TLW I wonder if Isla Sorna's fate will be mentioned, or if that's where they get the Dinosaurs for the new park in the first place or something (As Ludow was planning to do in TLW).
I am beginning to wonder: Can any dinosaur movie ever be done The Right Way? I don't think it's happened yet. The original Jurassic Park had a lot going for it, but it still doesn't stand up to repeated viewings ...
Couldn't disagree more. The story has some shaky moments, but the CGI and animatronic dinosaurs which are the main draw still hold up remarkably well 21 years later and surpass even some film's FX made today. I was in awe seeing the film for the first time in 1993 when they see that first Brachiosaurus. The novel was one of my favorites and given the fledgling CGI of the time (Terminator II had just opened up new possibilities a couple years earlier), I never thought the novel could be fully realized in such vivid fashion. Nostalgia may play a roll, but I still find JP to me very enjoyable and watch it whenever it's on TV or occasionally on DVD.
Except that it does. It still looks fantastic, some of the moral issues it tried to raise (not very well, mind you) are even more aplicable now then ever, and the acting is the same as your average blockbuster these days.
Has JW been confirmed a direct sequel to the other films 'cause, what I am reading here sounds like a reboot. Did I miss something? How could they, after everything that's happened, even consider rebuilding the park? The first time around "spared no expense" and yet failed miserably before the damn thing even opened. Are they nuts, or could that be the point... that TPTB never learn a lesson? Starting from scratch, revisiting the original premise, only makes sense [to me] in context of it being a reboot... something like, in this universe the park holds together as intended past the events of the original story. A reputation of control and safety is well established. Things don't get out of hand until the worst possible time... Perhaps at the height of a 4th of July weekend, (wink wink) the park is running at full capacity, every hotel room filled with happy guests (i.e. tasty snacks) when the dinosaur crap hits the fan.
It is a direct sequel. And I think it makes perfect sense to rebuild the park, live dinosaurs=printing money. People die in zoos every year yet almost every city has at least one.
The story takes place 22 years after the events of the first Jurassic Park. It's a sequel. I brought up the whole issue of the world wouldn't ever allow this to be built but someone brought up the fact money talks and there is money to be made with dinosaurs. Which is why this movie is being made.
Nobody expects ILM to have been 20 years ahead of its time, but the T-Rex and Raptors do look kind of flat, occassionally. Otherwise, what ILM & STAN WINSTON's workshop did was mind-blowing! I'm really a fan of the T-Rex look, in particular. That's how they would be, as far as I'm concerned. All the A-List actors of the time were in it, and all deliver solid performances. What makes repeated viewings difficult for me is Steven Spielberg's direction, honestly. And some of his story touches. For example: In trying to cut corners, when Ian, Ellie and Alan (and I guess the lawyer was there?) all get to see the raptors being fed a live cow in their pen. The cow up in the air with his hooves splayed out and circling, feeling for solid ground was a sight. But it's all done with sound effects, like we're not supposed to care or notice. Everybody looking into the pen, supposedly watching this gets a palm plant waved in their face, like ... what the hell's THAT? Not even a Raptor tail, up in the air, or nothing! The whole scene is just so stupid and pointless. It's just there to eat time. Hammond's insufferable speech about his days with The Flea Circus is an automatic skip-through. Like Speilberg's trying to summon his Quint speech again, from JAWS. Problem is Hammond's speech is lame and moronic. All of that time spent driving through the empty park needed to get edited down. The stupid kids who won't grab the gun on the floor, when Ellie and Alan are stuck keeping the door closed from a Raptor trying to get in is another situation that's just incredibly stupid and just there to eat up time. Have the kid get the gun! But no, Steven doesn't want to shoot that. The DNA cartoon goes on far too long and borders on annoying. It's just so stupid, as is the goofy "ride" their on, in the first place. A lot of other things in this movie are Steven Speilberg's fault as well and it just makes watching this movie hard to watch without very long breaks, in between. And the worst thing about the story of JURASSIC PARK was that it's own premise wasn't even what ended up being the case. "Oh, noes! Man & Dinos can't co-exist! Man's playing "god," surely he will be punished and destroyed by his own creations!" Hammond's park had it's problems, yes, but that was necessary only to serve the story. Otherwise, JURASSIC PARK had these animals contained, if not necessarily controlled. Dennis Nedry's greed changed everything. It had nothing to do with "the system." JURASSIC PARK worked fine. Yet, everybody's convinced the Park's the problem, by the end of this movie, because of it's own movie-mentality. If Speilberg wasn't really interested in these kinds of movies anymore, than he shouldn't have been making them. It's just a hard movie to re-engage myself in, even though I love the robots and CGI involved.
And it looked great in the theater last year as well. Besides did the 3D release make a decent amount of money at the box office?
^ It made $45 million domestically and was the number one film when it was released, and did huge business in China were apparently 3D films do much better than here. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jurassicpark3d.htm http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/global-box-office-jurassic-park-614090 Well, yeah, it's following the monster movie "less is more" philosophy that Jaws inadvertently perfected because the shark was always malfunctioning. Keep the main "baddies" concealed and mysterious and dangerous until it's time for their big reveal to build up suspense. I'm fine with Hammond's speech, but never have I considered it in any way a call back to Quint's terrifying monologue in Jaws. They're just so tonally and thematically different. The gun wouldn't have helped them at that moment anyway. Grant and Sattler were doing everything they could just to hold the door closed from the Raptor. Shooting it would have required getting out of the way of blocking the door, which would leave them vulnerable to attack until they had gotten up, aimed, and fired. That kid wasn't big enough to accurately and safely fire a shotgun under distress with Grant and Sattler right next to the line of fire either. It's supposed to be goofy. That's the point. It was about Hammond trying to reduce these extremely dangerous creatures into something as mundane and kid friendly as a ride at Disneyland. It's an illustration of his hubris. A lot of the stuff you're blaming on Spielberg were features of the novel the film was adapted from, and Michael Crichton can hardly be called a liberal (at least not on certain issues like the environment), which was your source of angst about Spielberg in your last rant about him. While I agree that having Nedry sabotage the park for greed undercuts the message that building a park was a bad idea from the start because you can't control nature (I guess there are no working zoos and nature reserves then), that's a feature of the book, not some insidious liberal message Spielberg inserted on his own, so blaming him makes no sense. But there were already elements that the park was slipping out of their control and built on poor reasoning before Nedry's sabotage, namely with the poison plants the triceratops was eating, that dinosaurs were getting Lysine from the plant life --thus negating their Lysine contingency plan, that they bred a dinosaur like the Raptors that were too dangerous to display, and most importantly, that the dinosaurs were able to change sex and reproduce in the wild completely unbeknownst to them, which means they never bothered to check on the dinosaurs again once they released them into the park. So while I don't think the idea of such a park being run effectively is impossible, I do think the idea of Hammond and InGen running a park effectively is. They never had the proper respect for what they were dealing with.
There are also several aspects of the book that focus on their lack of control/respect for the animals. The tracking system is only designed to monitor the set amount of dinosaurs and not monitor more. When this get's changed, the Dino population increases by several dozen to over 300! There is also the fact the monitors don't have full coverage of the island, the Raptors in particular take advantage of this and have created a thriving nest in the lower areas of Isle Nublar. Something which I wouldn't be surprised Jurassic World as a story point in the film. And of course, they didn't actually realise how dangerous the Dino's would be. The speed of the TRex, the poison glands of the Dilopho's and of course, the intelligence of the Raptors, which at one point, there was talk in the novel of breeding them to be more docile, another thing which sounds as if will happen in the new film Jurassic Park was the first ever film I saw at the cinema, it does hold a certain sentimentality for me and I can still sit down and rewatch it now and I generally can't wait to see Jurassic World next summer.