just how ahead of time the CGI In Jurassic Park (1993) really were.
No matter how big a difference there were In budget, a 16 year old movie just shouldnt have better CGI.
In nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti
good pointWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
Dude, go back and watch Jurassic Park now, and not the "cleaned up" Blu-Ray, and I think you'll have a different opinion. Not that it's bad, but the CGI definitely looks like 1993. The really good shots (which are the close-ups) aren't CGI at all, but puppets. Big, complex ones with teams of operators, but puppets nonetheless.
Wanna see bad puppets? Watch the 1975 Land That Time Forgot. Jesus, they're really bad. And that was made (at the same studio in London) 2 years before Star Wars, which shows you how big a jump THAT movie was.
Yes, George Lucas' CGI was way ahead of it's time, and Jurassic is a cool movie, but it's SO unfair to compare these 2 films. Jurassic was a hugely expensive movie that took hundreds of artists at ILM almost 2 years to render. Land cost $200,000 and had I'm guessing 4 or 5 guys doing the CG, with only 2 months to work. Sure, the software is way better now, but if you want to make big shiny Hollywood movies you need both time and money. Asylum doesn't have either, but I think they're trying their best with what they have.
People on these boards have been complaining about Asylum forever...about every facet of what they do. Here, they've finally been able to make a movie with good actors, decent CGI and a story that makes sense and is interesting, and people still rip them. I say "Job well done!"
I think people are so used to being negative that they can't step back for a moment and appreciate anything. Don't mean you personally KEELr. I've been watching Asylum films for a couple years now, and this is definitely their Citizen Kane. I don't think it's a GREAT movie, but it's not bad at all.
Dude, go back and watch Jurassic Park now, and not the "cleaned up" Blu-Ray, and I think you'll have a different opinion. Not that it's bad, but the CGI definitely looks like 1993. The really good shots (which are the close-ups) aren't CGI at all, but puppets. Big, complex ones with teams of operators, but puppets nonetheless.
Wanna see bad puppets? Watch the 1975 Land That Time Forgot. Jesus, they're really bad. And that was made (at the same studio in London) 2 years before Star Wars, which shows you how big a jump THAT movie was.
Yes, George Lucas' CGI was way ahead of it's time, and Jurassic is a cool movie, but it's SO unfair to compare these 2 films. Jurassic was a hugely expensive movie that took hundreds of artists at ILM almost 2 years to render. Land cost $200,000 and had I'm guessing 4 or 5 guys doing the CG, with only 2 months to work. Sure, the software is way better now, but if you want to make big shiny Hollywood movies you need both time and money. Asylum doesn't have either, but I think they're trying their best with what they have.
People on these boards have been complaining about Asylum forever...about every facet of what they do. Here, they've finally been able to make a movie with good actors, decent CGI and a story that makes sense and is interesting, and people still rip them. I say "Job well done!"
I think people are so used to being negative that they can't step back for a moment and appreciate anything. Don't mean you personally KEELr. I've been watching Asylum films for a couple years now, and this is definitely their Citizen Kane. I don't think it's a GREAT movie, but it's not bad at all.
Your Reply
Agree about the cgi in Jurassic Park. it's good but people seem to have rose tinted spectacles when they compare everything to it. That being said, if this is anything like their awful rendition of Hg Wells The War of the worlds then it will be bad. People have much higher expectations when film makers use established titles like those of Hg Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs and if they don't live up to expectations then they deservedly to get a slating.
Journey To The Centre of the Earth 3D is a complete insult to Jules Verne!
Thanks. I find it to be a bit like going to a little league baseball game and booing from the stands that the teams suck compared to the Yankees.
I missed War of the Worlds, but I can only imagine this is much better. They had to change some things in the plot, but (just my opinion) I think it works. Apparently, even though the book is in the Public Domain, they can't use the exact story or characters that were in the 1975 movie, because the movie is protected under copyright. That doesn't make complete sense to me, but that is how it is apparently.
Another thing about Burroughs. He's great (I've read a lot of his stuff), but I don't think people need to hold him up as a genius or anything. Most of his books were lesser derivatives of Jules Verne, Rudyard Kipling and Arthur Conan Doyle. In a way, he was the Asylum of his time, just with books. Even funnier is that Michael Crichton said he was inspired by Verne's "Mysterious Island" and Burroughs' "Land That Time Forgot" when he wrote the book Jurassic Park.
"decent CGI and a story that ... is interesting"... I have to vehemently disagree with both of those and add terrible writing and terrible special effects too. I will agree on the acting though, that was acceptable.
Of course this is a low-budget movie and you have to judge with that in mind, but c'mon. This sucks even for a low-budget movie. And I'm sorry but the CGI isn't even decent. It's pretty horrendous. No, I'm not comparing it to Jurassic Park, because that's an unfair comparison -- but I've seen cheap movies that had much better-looking CGI than this. This is really the worst of the worst. And as far as Asylum, I'm coming from no previous feelings one way or the other, as I had never heard of them prior to this movie.
Sure, you could treat this like a kid's school project and say "good for you" no matter what. But the fact is this movie is terrible. I couldn't stand watching it and I haven't heard from anyone yet who thought differently. But yeah good for them for trying, if they did try, which I sort of doubt.
Now since I'm a big meanie, I have to rationalize my criticism. If you're making a movie with 200 grand, 2 working months and 5 crew members, don't make it reliant on effects, because not only will they stink but the other aspects of the film will suffer (such as writing). Do what you can with what you have -- and what they had would never accommodate dinosaurs.
Since they were willing to make this movie despite the lack of time and resources, having had to know full well that it would probably not turn out good, makes me think they didn't care one way or the other. The proximity to "Land of the Lost" also makes me suspicious that they are simply trying to piggyback off of that movie's publicity with a similar theme and similar title, as so many little direct-to-video productions attempt to do.
Their project is a failure. It's the honest truth, and the combination of circumstances described makes me not feel too bad about stating that. This seems to have been a quick money-moocher that I really doubt anyone cared about.
equazcion i was thinking the same thing, the best dinosaurs movies to me are jurassic park and the 1978 scifi film planet of dinosaurs with it's impressive stop motion animated dinosaurs which i have planet of dinosaurs 4 times on youtube.com!
shareI appreciate your positive words on the film. I saw it again last night for the second time and thought it was quite well-done for a low-budget flick (I could tell it was partly shot in Malibu).
I liked that the main characters were likable and they developed a good cameraderie with the Germans (who had convincing accents).