Creating the Dinosaurs of Jurassic World | Featurette | Jurassic World 

Actress Not actor

Jesus Christ, she really does. It's a shame people who don't watch those videos like us geeks do will never know it. She gave her everything.

@@neldormiveglia1312 cause it was pointless and unnecessary to show

@@clifftonicstudios7469 Actor is fine. I mean, you say Doctor, not Doctress, even when referring to a woman. Actor is simply anyone who acts.

@@MJW238 They are called actresses, its been changed by modern garbage.

Mosasaurus: *sad Marine reptile noises*

"A marine reptile"

@Blue The Velociraptor yeah but "dino" means "terrible" and "saurus" means "lizard", also lizard means to have long body, long tail, movable eyelids, a rough scary or spiny skin. So mosasaurus can be categorized into dinosaurs, except the fact that lizards have four legs rather than flippers.

True XD

@@septicwahab4312 That makes no sense. By that logic every lizard would be a dinosaur.

Best job, period!

To be fair though they’re insanely good at it

Random person: Sooo…. Your a furry, then?

'Commenter calls one of the filmmakers 'random person' for the sake of joke' cliche. *add one sin*

lol thats true but so funny

absolutely agree

Creek Bottom o

*INCREDIABLE,THIS BOI HAS THE KERMIT FORCE*

How’d you spell “incredible” right at first but then spell it incorrectly 😂

That's why they are actors

John Doe h

Respec

Except actually out-running a T-Rex on high heels.

@@TIMEtoRIDE900 thats not katie mcgrath dude...lol. shes the assistant

And she looks so beautiful drenched in water 😍😍😍😍

I bet she got paid the most

ThatFishGuy ikr

It's epic & on top of that she's the first woman to die in a Jurassic film.

@@rogue6344 no the first dude to die was eaten while on the toilet(Jurassic Park)

@@kyptos2252 She said first woman

Good thing im not the only one who wants to be that one dude in the movie who gets eaten.

ikr

Yudha Ferdiant u r drunk

Yudha Ferdiant

Yudha Ferdiant

What are you talking about stewpid I like that guy

They did do amazing, but it just isn’t the same level of tension when you know it’s an animation verses practical

@@pointlessproductions7 Yeah of course! The animatronics were much more impactful, I'd have to agree. There were only some moments in the newer movies where I was like "oh thats poorly done cgi." But the actors did great considering they had to pretend something was there! Though I've always loved JP movies, and will continue to do so, even if it's all cgi haha. :D

Yui Draws Stuff yeah I totally agree, it would be nice to see a reemergence of practical effects. It’s the problem with things like Star Wars where it used to be all practical and now it’s all cgi it’s just a bit less interesting, but yeah I mean the actors did an awesome job

pointlessproductions What difference does it make?

@@hamj297 a lot practical effects feel more real

sonnic1995 exactly 😊

sonnic1995

her feet were not shown in these seconds where she lures out the rex so she can theoretically run without them

JerickHerick35 Force awakens is trash

She actually ran in heels, the one that we just saw was a practice.

i guess I'm kinda randomly asking but do anyone know of a good site to watch new tv shows online ?

@@reyanshelian7837 “What site could you find movies and TV shows” huh? What am I supposed to say Netflix?

​@@reyanshelian7837 MyFlixerto

the Original looks more real

@@clifftonicstudios7469 Yeah. Only the Indominus Rex looked realistic and even that not in all scenes.

i agree with you on this , people can be so nasty sometimes by criticizing the film , but know nothing on how its been put together . This behind the scenes is amazing

i cried in those scenes

Diamond Fury yes

Delta is still alive. Just watch.

Diamond Fury delta didn't die

Delta could still be alive when blue is going to the T. rex you can hear a noise in the background and it could be delta

Me too 🦕🦖🤓

Me too!!

ME TOO BUT THERES ONE THAT CATCH MY ATTENTION THE ONE THAT IS BEING DRAG BY PTERPDACTYL THAT SUDDENLY FALLS OUT OF WATER

Me too ❤❤❤

he’s a person

@@themcbaisen dwarfs are a type of ppl

To all who are saying whats wrong with calling him a dwarf: I know at least 7 people with that genetic disorder and they dont like being called dwarves. They all want to be treated like everyone else. If your going to refer to their size, they prefer to be called little people. They also consider being called a midget the equivalent to the N word. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WGaDhRMIZ3A.html

same lol

@@EdrianTheLegend they are a type of person, their just a normal person, you say that like they are a subspecies

Yup and done a shitty job. It could've been Spielberg to take directing the movie.

Actually he got the idea from a animation of some pterosaurs attacking people

Lol 😂

😂😂😂😂👍

The cgi guys probably thinking "ohh no he comes with his toys again, its gonna be alot of work"

Ahahahaha

I can’t ether- 😂

That God me dead 😂

😂😂😂

😂✋🏽

Lion Mane 360 Julie

Never seen Foodfight.

Work acknowledged. Better work was done in 1993 on Jurassic. But who cares right?

Some people just love complaining

Brandon Spain the haters can't even make a movie.

Godzilla Kyru we don't hate cgi. We hate the overuse of cgi in modern movies. Steven Spielberg used it at the right dose (Jurassic Park, not Ready Player One). James Cameron used it at the right dose (terminator, not avatar). George Lucas used it at the right dose (star wars, not the sequel). Peter Jackson used the right dose (lotr, not the hobbit).

Hi

they said the same about this one, only to be replaced by CGI... the only one puppet/animatronic that made it to the final cut was the dying Apatosaurus and you could totally tell it was a puppet... a very well done puppet but still not at the same level of the ones on the first two movies

sonnic1995 :/

sonnic1995 if stan winston was still alive the dinos would look a trillion times better

The CGI wasn't that bad and it's more realistic than the first Jurassic park and I think they did use a few more animatronics but then enhanced them with CGI to make them seem more realistic.

as far as i know, they had animatronics but they completeley overlayed them with cgi, not "enhanced" but replaced, in my opinion JW does not look more realistic than JP, just look at the t-rex when smashes the skeleton, the eyes look weird... i liked the movie but the effects are far from "more realistic" than the first two... but to be fair jurassic park's cgi looked a little way more fake but they wisely fooled the eye switching between cgi and animatronics... but the animatronics still better than the cgi

imagine being a part of it ! so cool !

Hello

Fine. It has a stupid story. lol

Rutch Johnson Hahahahaha lol 😂😂

...yep. After all, this movie was meant for your kind of modern audience indeed ;)

For the kids its great. Alot of action and no story. I loved the first movie because the story made you believe it was actually real and not how realistic the dinosaur looked because in the end that doesnt make the movie better.

lmao i half agree with you cause I don't really get it how robots make it more real than CGI. And @Brandon Spain when you say "your non-imagination thoughts" then "without the "robots" I don't believe that a dinosaur in the movie isn't real"

FriKuShAxP it's planned ;)

I really don't understand the obsession of people about practical effects and all of that stuffs. I don't understand how more animatronics or more practical effects would make a movie better or "cool". People seem not to understand that what matter is the final result and that CG and practical effects are just tools. For example, do you really think that Kubo and the Two Strings was only made using stop-motion? Let me tell you that there have been tons and tons of use of CG during the making of that movie. Not even once I have heard or read of any good explanation from CG-haters stating why they hate CG. What they do is just bitching that CG shit and that practical effects are the best. For example, I even heard from some stupid channel on youtube (I no longer remember which channel it was) that color grading just made the last Jurassic movie worst compared to the original. So, I've watched the original Jurassic Park movie again just because of that bullshit and my reaction when I saw the flat colors was: boring! Why the fuck would people keep on enhancing the colors on their photos with Photoshop when they hate color grading? Of course, sometimes, there are bad CG. But that depend on the skill and experience of the studios. But here we are talking about studios such as ILM or Image Engine; and not some random amateur studios. Of course, one may tell that a dinosaur is computer generated because dinosaurs do not exist (at least not anymore). But you would never know the difference between what is CG and what is real when they tackle things that we know (or may) exist. A really good example of use of invisible CGs is the movie The Equalizer. And yet Zero VFX (the studio responsible for the VFX on that particular movie) is no match to ILM in terms of experiences and technologies. Also, I forgot to mention that Zero VFX is not an amateur studio. And finally, without CG none of those really acclaimed superhero movies you liked so much would have seen the light. Without CG, forget about Deadpool, Iron Man, the Avengers, Gardians of of the Galaxy, the upcoming Logan, Xmen, ... everything that is "cool".

You are lying if you say you are confused about why I don't understand the obsession of people about animatronics. I think I did clearly elaborate on my thoughts. I asked why people think animatronics makes a movie better and you did not answer this really simple but important question. Yeah, maybe you kind of answered it by saying it's because of "nostalgia", but the explanation that "animatronics makes the dinosaurs feel more real and alive" is a complete bullshit. So, let me explain you my thoughts more thoroughly if the former explanation wasn't clear enough: I did not feel the need to watch the movies as you suggeted, as I just needed to look all over youtube for the dinosaurs scenes and it was spot on that if a dinosaur was not fully shown from head to toe, chances are that they were practically made. So, that somewhat narrowed down the amount of scenes I needed to look up to. Keep in mind that CG dinausors were also massively used on the three movies. But suddenly I realized why not look at Stan Winston School youtube channel for how they've made the animatronics? and guess what? I've seen the animatronic rigs they used to move the dinausors and those were just basic rigs that are only meant to move the big masses such as the lower part of the jaw, articulating the neck, the tail and so on. Of course they also had rigs for the eyes for blinking, but we can say that's pretty much it. There were no refined control rigs for subtle facial expressions. Also, On along with the behind the scenes they show some parts of the movies where the animatronics were used and some demonstrations of the capabilities of the rig, and guess what? I didn't feel the "more real and alive" parts. Your arguments practically says that those dinosaurs, from the original three movies, regardless of them being practical or CGI, are 1000 times better than those of Jurassic World whose dinosaurs were all CGI with refined advanced control rigs on along with muscles and tissue simulations. But it seems like the fact that a CG animator has the ability to refine the dinosaurs performance in anyway he want it does not mean anything to you. An animator has full control over its creature. If there is a something he wants to achieve but can't because of the current rig, he can simply send it back to the rigger for him to refine it and add additional controls; or he can simply ask for a new rig that suits his need for a particular shot. Also, keep in mind that a 10 seconds animation can take up to a month to make at studios such as ILM because of quality expectation. For the rendering part, they have specialized group of people responsible for what is called "look development". Those people make sure that the dinosaur look Ok from all angles under all possible lighting conditions; whether it is during the day, night, sunny, cloudy, ... . If the look doesn't suit the director's mind (maybe he wants a pink dinosaur) it has to be refined or completely changed. Such change can occur even if shots have been fully composited and delivered. I'm telling you those since you seem not to understand the amount of works involved in making CG assets/Creatures. I just described you a small but important portion of the current pipeline. Also notice the "full control and flexibility" during the whole pipeline. Such a level of control can even be seen on how the creature's feet interact with the leaves on the ground. Take look at Image Engine's Jurassic World presentation during one of The Foundry's event for that feet interaction thing if you don't trust me. On the other hand, consider animatronic/practical effect. Does it give you such a level control and flexibility? The answer is quite simple: No! So, don't blame the whole CG world if something doesn't look right. If you want to blame someone, then blame the fucking director because he's the one responsible for the final decision. Also, nostalgia doesn't make anything that might look Ok better. QED.

I said the best way to make jurassic park movie is to have proper cgi combined with animatronics

No, you did not say that. You only suggested that more animatronics should be used for the next movie; you did not say anything more. It might be sad to hear what I'm going to say, but I'll say it anyway. Nowadays, animatronics are mainly (if not only) used as visual guides for the actors, tracking/matchmoving, animation, ... . Absolutely no respectable VFX Studios would ever use animatronic as hero asset anymore. You might not want to admit it, but if not because of those actors, CG can stand on its own in such a way that you would not know if a shot is either full CG or not. In order to act properly, actors need visual guides and thus the use of practical assets. But in the end, those visual guides needs to be replaced with CG hero assets/creatures. Never again will animatronics be used as final representation of creatures in a blockbuster movie, because of their rigidity in terms of performance and iteration. You might not know, but a shot has to undergo lots and lots of iteration in order to be approved. As I said earlier, directors might change their mind halfway through the preproduction pipeline and choose to alter the main creature's design drastically for example. You can always go for the practical/animatronics solution and shoot everything from the beginning. But keep in mind that the director is the one who has to approve everything in the end; and no matter how many times he changes his mind during the making of the movie, whether it is only once or 50 times for just a single dinosaur, that is totally OK. But remember, time is money. And CG is a great time saver. As an example, take the Black Panther's costume from Captain America Civil War. Even though the actor already had a fairly good costume, decision has been taken to replace the practical costume with a 100% CG costume throughout the movie. And thank god they made that decision! Just have a look at Cinesite's VFX Breakdown of the movie. Note that no one did complain that the Black Panther's costume was entirely CGI after having watched the movie. As a conclusion, the "practical effects and animatronics are the best" argument can be busted quite easily and is irrational as fuck. But the irrationality of people is just something that I will never understand. Thanks, and no need for applause.

The midget from Pirates of the Caribbean to make it even more epic :B

Lol

AAAAHH AIR!! NOAIAIAJHSHUWBS

Oliver Shelton Agar, Bryce would never do something that's not part of the script

Wisco B1itz how old are you? You can be an extra! Or you can audition for a kid role!

Dipranjan Bora may my sisters Rest In Peace.

@@Timber-043 i know.........R.I.P . i feel like crying

Stan Winston spinning in his grave is how they power Jurassic World.

@@showboyninner Exactly! The younger audience who never seen the first movie enjoyed the hell outta JW and JW2. It's sad to see how terrible the franchise is going, along with Terminator, Star Wars, and Fast & Furious.

@@showboyninner so in other words you are clouded by nostalgia

LachyM8!!!!!! Ya but it was in the dinosaur times

Yeah but mosasaurus was an aquatic lizard.

Yeah but mosasaurus was an aquatic lizard.

I think they're just referring to as one because its a Mesozoic reptile and its easier to call it a "dinosaur" than a prehistoric aquatic reptile

Mike the bike. I guess so, but it's annoying for me for some reason. XD But I do really think that the creators don't know that.

Oliverdoesstuff oh ya good eye

Woahhhhh

They were going to have one in the movie but they decided not to so that indominus Rex would feel more "Unique"

Brendamania I'm enough of a jp/jw fan to know that since a few years ago

Oliverdoesstuff i

They look more realistic with animatronics, but for hard scenes, they need to use CGI.

Of course.

Maybe they meant that it looked like it was actually there.

Well remember these Dino's have frog DNA and Henry Wu clearly stated that all these dinosaurs would look a lot different if their genetic code was pure so if it was some would have feathers but not in the Jurassic park/world movies cuz the Dino's use frog DNA and frogs don't have feathers

Realistic not accurate to reality in universe their genetic code is not pure which is why they look different to reality so when he says realistic he is right

Paige Lynn it is! Well it depends...if it does good..

Well we got the netflix series and the live action series

Lmaoooo

hehehe

😆😆😆😆

For those who watch closely and listen they tell you those are for the visual effects artists to make it look like the dinosaur is making contact with the ground