
New Jurassic World Trailer Hides Improved CGI in Plain Sight - juliann
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-jurassic-world-trailer-hides-improved-cgi-plain-sight/
======
bendavis381
Trailer deliveries are ridiculous. Months of work is put into these trailers,
revision after revision, late night after late night, only for the shot to be
almost entirely discarded the day after delivery as the look and spectacle of
it would look out of place in the context of the final edit. Studios want
these trailers to look amazing so they put huge demands on the VFX artists
responsible, so yeah inevitably the shots look rushed and obviously will get
better before final release.

~~~
CyberDildonics
This is not all together true. Usually trailer shots are called out at some
point in the visual effects schedule of a show, and those shots are finished
first specifically for the trailer deadline. The shots are not discarded and
rarely "different" from what appears in movies, but can frequently be revised.
In this case it is easy to see that the pterodactyl shot was a plate that
could be used as a POV shot in earlier commercials and now has more of the
shot done (and is likely considered to be finished, or labeled CBB - could be
better / couldn't be bothered).

------
emsy
Just recently I rewatched the first 3 Jurassic Park movies and found they aged
really well. You never have the feeling that there's to much CGI because they
striked an awesome balance between CGI, animatronics and sceneography
(especially the first movie, but the other two are still above average imho).
On the other hand, many of my friends agree that The Hobbit already looked bad
when it came out.

The only weird thing about Jurassic Park 2 was the overuse of the T-Rex head.
But the rest never feels "Hollywoodky".

Seeing the changes and the trailer, I have little hope for Jurassic World to
be a movie where you can immerse deeply and forget that you're watching a
movie.

~~~
dr_zoidberg
I thought the first Jurassic Park had little to none CGI, going with
animatronics, puppets and on-stage vissual effects. Is there any article to
read about where and how CGI was used in that movie?

~~~
bendavis381
Any shot where you can see the entire T-REX is CG AFAIK. FXGuide is always a
great place for VFX related stuff: [http://www.fxguide.com/featured/welcome-
back-to-jurassic-par...](http://www.fxguide.com/featured/welcome-back-to-
jurassic-park/)

~~~
dr_zoidberg
That was a very good read, thanks for the link.

------
peterwwillis
The new scenes have also changed to the "blue and orange" color scheme of all
modern movies.

~~~
chiph
I noticed that as well. It's one of those things that once it's pointed out to
you, it's impossible to ignore.

~~~
ema
I for one noticed that they made the water more blue, but didn't connect it to
the "blue and orange" color scheme, despite having read about it again just a
couple of days ago.

------
Shivetya
As long as it does not lead to endless edits post release I am fine with
tweaking it. However recent CGI-fests like the Hobbit series do make me think
some directors don't know restraint.

~~~
pound
Peter Jackson is exactly that kind of directors. And he is consistent in that.
Even before LoR/Hobbit, check out King Kong made by him. It's like watching
Serious Sam, never-ending battle with CGI monsters, boring and pointless (as
part of the movie, playing SS games is fun of course).

~~~
Fuzzwah
If you're going to spend / waste time watching old Peter Jackson movies, do
yourself a favor and check out Bad Taste.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092610/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092610/)

------
Agustus
When Cloverfield first trailer came out, there was a shot where the Statue of
Liberty's head was flung into a street. The first version of it appeared to be
a rough cut CGI [1], then the second version came out of the trailer and the
head was thoroughly improved[2].

I know that there is a need for buzz to be created, but where does the line
between changes and false advertising occur. If for some reason I was super
psyched about the dinosaur jumping out of the water and eating the shark and
the scene is cut from the movie, then how is this different from car sales
saying they have a car with a/c on the lot and then finding it never existed.

1\. Trailer 1 screenshot:
[http://i.imgur.com/bqkryTL.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/bqkryTL.jpg)

2\. Trailer 2 screenshot:
[http://i.imgur.com/A9uVtnx.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/A9uVtnx.jpg)

~~~
nitrogen
Wasn't there a Bourne movie trailer that contained a scene or quotation that
never occurred in the movies?

~~~
bentcorner
Just last night I watched the Tangled trailer with my daughter. A large
portion of the trailer never happens in the movie:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxuxrLNrsw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxuxrLNrsw)

My guess is that it was going to be part of the movie but ended up getting cut
for editing reasons. (The whole "hair as weapon" bit is probably inconsistent
with character for the rest of the movie)

~~~
hullo
I'm not familiar with Tangled, but by the time Disney got to Frozen, there was
a trailer with Olaf & Sven that is basically a stand-alone scene not in the
movie at all (intentionally). It's impressionistic more than trying to
represent the film literally.

~~~
Agustus
I am okay with that as a teaser, as long as it is billed as a short or it is
made to be characters doing something.

Doing scenes within a movie and making it feel 100% as a trailer and then
cutting it out is different.

------
Zikes
Guardians of the Galaxy did the same thing. Every time a trailer was released
showing the same shots the CGI was always improved/changed.

------
qznc
Why do the mountains in the background even matter?

~~~
wmeredith
Everything on screen matters. Modern Cinema is a HIGHLY evolved art form. If
you have any interest in this at all, YouTube user Every Frame A Painting
publishes, short, easily digestible, and well-produced YouTube videos about
this stuff that are eye-opening.

Here are a few of my favorites:

Edgar Wright - How to Do Visual Comedy:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOzD4Sfgag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOzD4Sfgag)

The Silence of the Lambs - Who Wins the Scene?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V-k-p4wzxg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V-k-p4wzxg)

Michael Bay - What is Bayhem?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q)

~~~
not_that_noob
Thanks for the links - excellent depth in the analysis. Loved the ones on
Jackie Chan.

~~~
wmeredith
You're totally welcome. I'm not personally involved in that YouTube channel,
but I try to spread it far and wide. It's such a great gem of content.

------
trefn
If you're interested in how the original movies had such high-quality effects:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2ndx0r/the_full_jura...](http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2ndx0r/the_full_jurassic_world_trailer/cmcs22y)

------
dneronique
> Humorously, a Facebook-esque header on one spectator’s smartphone screen has
> disappeared.

I didn't notice the header. However, I did appreciate that they changed the
mountains on the smartphone picture to match the updated landscape.

------
sixQuarks
They even got the little details right. Check out the spectator in the bottom
right taking a pic on his mobile. The image in the screen changed as well.

------
smackfu
I'm a bit surprised that it is worth it to rework effects for a second
trailer.

------
zizzer
The use of "foreground" as a verb in that article really bothers me for some
reason.

~~~
skywhopper
I have the same gut instinct as you do, but a huge proportion of English*
verbs come into being this way, taking over nouns as a shorthand way of
expressing the idea.

For a good discussion and some links to background, see this recent Language
Log post:
[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=16394](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=16394)

* I restricted my assertion to English because I don't know one way or the other if other languages tend to this sort of evolution. My impression is that particular languages tend to be open to some types of changes and less open to others, but that which changes varies from language to language.

~~~
mryingster
This reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin discusses
verbing words.

[http://assets.amuniversal.com/6f34d860df950131725e005056a954...](http://assets.amuniversal.com/6f34d860df950131725e005056a9545d)

That's kind of an amazing aspect of English as a language; you can misuse
words entirely, yet still convey a message. I wonder if this linguistic
flexibility is due to the fact that our language is a mixture of so many other
languages with disparate grammatical rules.

