New Jurassic World Trailer Hides Improved CGI in Plain Sight

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.

Just recently I rewatched the first 3 Jurassic Park movies and found they aged really well. You never have the feeling that there&#x27;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.<p>The only weird thing about Jurassic Park 2 was the overuse of the T-Rex head. But the rest never feels &quot;Hollywoodky&quot;.<p>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&#x27;re watching a movie.

The new scenes have also changed to the &quot;blue and orange&quot; color scheme of all modern movies.

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&#x27;t know restraint.

When Cloverfield first trailer came out, there was a shot where the Statue of Liberty&#x27;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].<p>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&#x2F;c on the lot and then finding it never existed.<p>1. Trailer 1 screenshot: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/bqkryTL.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;bqkryTL.jpg</a><p>2. Trailer 2 screenshot: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/A9uVtnx.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;A9uVtnx.jpg</a>

Guardians of the Galaxy did the same thing. Every time a trailer was released showing the same shots the CGI was always improved&#x2F;changed.

Why do the mountains in the background even matter?

If you&#x27;re interested in how the original movies had such high-quality effects: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2ndx0r/the_full_jurassic_world_trailer/cmcs22y" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;movies&#x2F;comments&#x2F;2ndx0r&#x2F;the_full_jura...</a>

&gt; Humorously, a Facebook-esque header on one spectator’s smartphone screen has disappeared.<p>I didn&#x27;t notice the header. However, I did appreciate that they changed the mountains on the smartphone picture to match the updated landscape.

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.

I&#x27;m a bit surprised that it is worth it to rework effects for a second trailer.

The use of &quot;foreground&quot; as a verb in that article really bothers me for some reason.