You not stubbornly sticking to your guns in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary for once? You said, and I quote:
First of all, I think it's a little silly to equate the method of filming with how "special" the film is or not. I like when they use practical FX too, but there are plenty of special scenes done in CGI too. I would hope that the drama and writing and performances in the scene would have more of an influence on the specialness of it rather than solely technical details, but whatever. That's just a difference of opinion.
What's annoying, though, is when you say this film is lesser and not special because it's so much more CGI and not animatronic dinosaurs... and then I point out with numerous examples how it has all of those things... and then you come back with "Well, it just doesn't feel like it, man." That's why people get frustrated with you. It's your stubborn insistence that you know more than everyone else about cinema, counter-evidence be damned.
It's like those damned Marvel movies you complain about in every other thread where people have directly responded to and presented evidence to contradict your "plot holes" and complaints, yet you keep right on rolling along as if nothing has changed.
No way, you mean they didn't build a working flying 20-foot Pteranodon robot that flies by flapping its wings just to have that miracle of aerodynamic and robotic achievement be eaten the the 80-foot robotic sea monster they also built? No shit, there are going to be some things which are a bit beyond the ability of modern animatronics to do practically and affordably.
Also, that's clearly a different scene, not the same one being used over again. The scene with the shark was with an audience in attendance at the stadium. The scene with the Pteranodon is after the shit has already hit the fan and the helicopter crashed into the aviary dome. The shark scene was basically a set-up for the second scene of the Pteranodon being grabbed.
So, we're not even supposed to argue with your points anymore when you pontificate on films like the King of Cinema? Deal with it.
It's a perfectly valid response to your point that they're using hybrids and upscaled "non-real" animals and how that takes away from the specialness of the film. And I said they've been doing that in varying degrees from the start. Besides which, all the real dinosaurs are still in this film too. There's just one extra one.
