Welcome to Jurassic World, the park is now open! 20 years later and thankfully we still do not have the rumoured script revolving around genetically modified human/raptor commandos. That being said, I’d like to exposit that not all is rosy in a world of dinosaurs that chomp down on tourists. It is a rarity in film media when there is resounding positivity before the release of a project but with Jurassic World that seems to be the case.
Whether it is a nostalgia driven need to hear the iconic John Williams track on-screen once more, or for the sheer love of the world’s most charming lead Chris Pratt; whatever your poison, the hype train has done their job well on this one. Pratt has pulled double duty in regards to the amount of interviews that a star typically does during the rounds of promotion, and the two trailers have been pushed massively on streaming sites like YouTube anyway. The general consensus is of delight at the idea of seeing one of the greatest franchises returning to the big screen. They’ve watched the trailers and they’ve said “Yes. I want dinosaurs again.”.
For me, this has been a difficult one to feel hopeful towards. I am of the sentiment that I am ready to see dinosaurs again, but at the same time, I know that I’m likely to see a pale imitation of the original movie that I know and love. There has been one question plaguing my mind ever since the first trailer dropped. After I got over the childish glee felt from revisiting the island, I couldn’t help but notice that the movie is heavily aesthetic driven. This trailer is illustrating the action packed parts and the money shots of the big dinosaurs. This makes sense, naturally, as it’s a film of the action/adventure genre and therefore has to entertain the masses with close ups of life-like dinosaurs. I do have a few questions, though.
Why make a sequel to a movie made 20 years ago and advertise it as a visual feast, when your dinosaurs do not look as good as they did in that original movie?
The goal over time with computer graphics has always been progression. There is the age-old argument that the market has been saturated by these special effects, thus causing a jaded opinion from the general public. This is fair to say in some regards, but when it comes to trips down memory lane such as Jurassic World, there seems to be a free pass. When you bill a movie as a successor, there should be an aim to improve upon your predecessor.
The problem with the dinosaurs of Jurassic World is that they would not look out-of-place in Guardians of The Galaxy, as they are beyond the suspension of disbelief. Contrast this with the original and its blend of computer graphics with exceptional lighting, coupled perfectly with animatronic (to scale) figures, and the ‘new and improved’ dinosaurs fall a little flat. The originals were a completely different approach to filmmaking in keeping with an old style mentality. The old mentality of the film industry leaned towards practicality. Computer graphics were the last resort. If you could build it, you would. This ideal came from the fact that it was more expensive to produce special effects back then. These days, utilising SFX is the safest and cheapest option available.
I feel that there is a distinct laziness in a production that does not try to build upon the groundwork that has been laid out for it. We already know that their animatronics are good enough for theme park rides, as they are used in excess on the Jurassic Park River adventure in Florida. If these creations are good enough to be seen by the public in person, then why are they not good enough to be seen in the movie? The right camera trickery balanced with a good lighting team could make this as memorable as the original. I am not suggesting forgoing computer graphics. I am suggesting subtlety. I am suggesting a level of intelligent film making that goes beyond a motorcycle riding Chris Pratt chilling out with palette-swappable assets from an Uncharted video game on the PS3.
The reason I can’t get invested is the lack of charm to the process behind this. The graphics look lifeless and my interest is at a level of mild. Compare visually the first movie to this new offering and there is a great distance in terms of realism. Jurassic Park brought dinosaurs to life. Jurassic World dumped them firmly into the uncanny valley. A term used to describe the way CGI creatures move distinctly like a real being, but are noticeably not natural. Animatronics eliminate that aesthetic flaw held in many of today’s CGI films. Jurassic World is more comparable visually to The Phantom Menace and Kingdom of The Crystal Skull than it is to its own franchise. That is a red flag. It is not for
me to say that this will be a bad film, but my worries are a hindrance in my mind. Hopefully, despite my concerns, I’ll be proven wrong once the film is released.
Jurassic World will probably be good. It looks fun. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard will both give fine performances. You may think it petty to hang a movie purely on its visuals, but when you are selling your movie on that aspect, that is where you will be judged. There is an obvious departure from the realism of the first (and arguably second) to a more goofier tone and I can see why they made that choice. Equally, I have to berate the choice as one of little polish and, in my opinion, a dilution of a premise that deserves better.
Jurassic World will be a solid popcorn flick, but will it be remembered? Will it be revered for years to come? I certainly don’t think so. Creating a world of Jurassic Park without having a refined version of the techniques employed in the first is equivalent to making a Gremlins movie made entirely out of computer graphics. It is cheap. It is lazy. It is just… unfortunate.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you agree with me? Are you excited for Jurassic World? Comment down below!
Jurassic World is set for release in Ireland on the 13th of June, 2015
