My family always said to try and embrace the future, when i saw the firs film in 1993 it WAS the future.
But the park is in the past... and it's dated compared to the future.
Blah blah blah allusions blah. Where am i going here? Simple: I'm taking away your nostalgia goggles , that's what.
It doesn't matter if jurassic park is your aliens, you still have to look a t things objectively. And i see most fans are being way to forgiving with this franchise's CGI.
I'm not saying the CGI is terrible, it's still pretty good. But is HAS aged, and compared to the new 2014 Godzilla, or the 2005 King Kong, it's failed to stay perfect.
Now, look at the Brachie scene in the first one, everyone and their momma praise it for looking so good.... but it looks like the most dated scene in the franchise for me. Look at the texture, the way it's their.... it doesn't even look like it's in the shot!!! Same goes with many scenes in the first three, there skin float in odd ways like there rubber. There's little to no detail in the texture, there's no muscle movement at all. This was the film's biggest flaw.
Now jurassic world has buggy moment's too. The raptor's look a bit to clean at times and pop a bit much. But they HAVE weight , they HAVE detail, they HAVE texture.The Indoraptor looks better than any CGI shot in the first three movie's combined. So far, there's nothing off about it at all. The fact that CG is improving since jurassic park isn't bad, it's GOOD. It means we improved since the 90's , and that means we can continue to do so in the future.
I think the CGI from the first film has held up quite well. When it was released the CGI was amazing frankly, the other films I can't vouch for though.
If I see an outdated CG, I see an outdated CG.
Godzilla Generations was a beautiful game! I loved the fact that there's a laser cannon inside of Dr. Serizawa's eyepatch.
I think the first three still look good. The rainy night scenes always seemed to look best though.
Keep in mind, the screen clarity for viewing devices in the 90's and early 2000's pale in comparison to today's. Even those in 2005 were vastly superior; that was the first time I ever saw a flatscreen tv. On old 90's box tv's, the CGI would look great.
Alphadino65 Good point. Aside from CGI being younger back then and nonexistent for some, we now experience those movies/shows on more updated screens. Here is the rub I think some people forget- sorry to get a bit OT, complaints about Twilight Zone, Star Trek, Dr Who etc from way back in the day seldom are heard regarding visuals even though it was the best they could do at the time. It seems likely because they were actually good and original with well developed characters and story- something that ages well.
The story and characters from JP were just fine imo and that was more than enough to ignore a few cgi limitations here and there. It seems that if a major gripe is cgi quality, the viewer may not be engaged in the story in the first place.
rexgoji I'm not saying the CGI is terrible, it's still pretty good. But is HAS aged, and compared to the new 2014 Godzilla, or the 2005 King Kong, it's failed to stay perfect.
It is difficult to agree with that statement. For one thing, a movie from the 1990s is being compared to one well over a decade newer with better technology. Of course movies age. Godzilla 2014 might look terrible compared to newer movies in 2025. There might be different companies with different people, tech and budgets too. What about imagination from the viewer? After all, it is known that is all make believe anyway.
I get where Rexgoji is coming from, Jurassic World does have improved CGI but some fans tend to state the opposite
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!