U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2018, 10:29 PM
 
3,008 posts, read 984,404 times
Reputation: 966

Advertisements

But so many people complain about how the hated the CGI in that movie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2018, 12:04 AM
 
15,058 posts, read 8,590,304 times
Reputation: 25103
I'm curious as to how the OP determined that people were making this movie out to be a 'masterpiece.'

It currently sits at 68% meta critic reviews as well as 92% rotten tomatoes. The movie certainly had some very good reviews, but I've never known any movie critic to have considered it a masterpiece deserving of being one of the top 10 movies of that year or one of the greatest movies ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 12:45 AM
 
3,008 posts, read 984,404 times
Reputation: 966
Well maybe not so much the critics but just people I know, really loving the movie saying it's one of their most favorite movies. Most favorite as in along with the top of the top.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 01:16 AM
 
Location: NYC
11,836 posts, read 7,728,213 times
Reputation: 12824
It's a generational thing. If Star Wars came out today vs the 70s, people would trash it so bad. Because it doesn't make any sense. It's basically Lord of the Ring in space, there is zero science fiction or science behind any of it. Jurassic Park was a big deal back then because cloning was the buzzword in the 90s. We had Clone Wars. I'm surprised the OP didn't ask, what was so great about "The Fly (1986)."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 06:31 AM
 
18,005 posts, read 9,883,430 times
Reputation: 17494
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
It's a generational thing. If Star Wars came out today vs the 70s, people would trash it so bad. Because it doesn't make any sense. It's basically Lord of the Ring in space, there is zero science fiction or science behind any of it. Jurassic Park was a big deal back then because cloning was the buzzword in the 90s. We had Clone Wars. I'm surprised the OP didn't ask, what was so great about "The Fly (1986)."
That's why I said before, "you had to be there then."

The Beatle's early music sounds silly now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 05:25 PM
 
3,008 posts, read 984,404 times
Reputation: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post
It's a generational thing. If Star Wars came out today vs the 70s, people would trash it so bad. Because it doesn't make any sense. It's basically Lord of the Ring in space, there is zero science fiction or science behind any of it. Jurassic Park was a big deal back then because cloning was the buzzword in the 90s. We had Clone Wars. I'm surprised the OP didn't ask, what was so great about "The Fly (1986)."
But there are space action movies that have no sci-fi behind it nowadays that are hits, like Avatar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2018, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,471 posts, read 640,480 times
Reputation: 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
But people hate CGI now and keep saying that practical effects and prosthetics are better. So if that's true, then why do people think that the dinosaurs in Jurassic park are more amazing compared to the practical effects of the 70s King Kong being a man in a gorilla suit?

Why is CGI so picked on after? Even with the 2005 King Kong came out, everyone seemed to not like the CGI as much compared to the 70s Kong practical effects. Or everyone complains about the 2011 The Thing having too much CGI, and think that the practical effects of the 1980s The Thing is better, etc.

As for Metropolis and 2001, I feel that they have better stories to tell compared to Jurassic Park though, and had better scripts to work with.
For starters, Jurassic Park wasn't just CGI, it was also prosthetics and animatronics.



Not to mention,it dealt with dinosaurs, one of the most beloved entities in history. Plus, it was the first major movie to talk about DNA and cloning. It was truly a revolutionary project on a massive scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2018, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
12,904 posts, read 18,475,202 times
Reputation: 13738
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
It was a decent movie, but I don't feel it's the huge masterpiece that so many people make it out to be. It's more like a movie of the week or something like that for me.

Basically I felt the movie had a good idea, but could have had such a better execution. For example, they introduce this idea of a consequence of the human's actions that the dinosaurs found a way to evolve, now that they have been combined with frog's DNA, they can now reproduce.

And I got really excited and thought yeah, there is now a consequence for the human's messing with nature. But this reproduction evolution idea, is then completely forgotten about, and the rest of the movie settles for a series of dinosaur attacks only, and then it's over.

So I felt like it had the potential to be more but didn't. Still decent for a dinosaur action movie, but could have been more. But what do you think?
If you weren't between ages 5 and 18 and didn't see it in the theaters back in '93 you probably won't understand.

It blew us away visually like nothing we had ever seen before. It was my generation's Star Wars moment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2018, 06:51 PM
 
18,005 posts, read 9,883,430 times
Reputation: 17494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
If you weren't between ages 5 and 18 and didn't see it in the theaters back in '93 you probably won't understand.

It blew us away visually like nothing we had ever seen before. It was my generation's Star Wars moment.
Yes. And for my generation, it was 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2018, 07:42 AM
 
6,122 posts, read 3,069,703 times
Reputation: 9577
For it's time, and what it presented on the screen, it was a marvel of technology. It was believable to the eye, and didn't detract from the movie by thinking the effects were shoddy. Sure you can find mistakes or whatever in this and any movie, but from beginning to end it felt as real as it possibly could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top