here are the 4 main reasons why I disagree with rickraptor105. (and partially with Kingrexy, who's opinion I respect a lot)
both are pretty nice as people, I'm only disagree with their statements, not the people themselves
1-lava doesn't kill you as fast or hurt you as bad as you think. I checked this article-volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-cl…on the website: "Volcano World" (owned by Oregon state university)
it says this: "Lava won't kill you if it briefly touches you. You might get a nasty burn, if the wind is moving in your direction but unless you fell in and couldn't get out, you wouldn't die. With prolonged contact, the amount of lava "coverage" and the length of time it was in contact with your skin would be important factors in how severe your injuries would be! The health of the individual, the amount of time before care can be given and the quality of that care would also be important. In fact there have been 2 cases at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory where a geologist fell into lava. Fortunately, in both instances, the lava was not very deep and they were able to get out quickly. Both ended up in the hospital and it was a scary and painful experience. Both recovered fine. Blong (1984) points out that little research has been done on injuries caused by lava. People have been killed by very fast moving lava flows. A recent example was the 1977 eruption at Nyiragongo."
meaning it wouldn't INSTANTLY kill the baryonyx in the bunker.
(epecially since the bary has thick croc-like skin and the lava only touch for half a second)
as for Owen (who did have a few burns on his arm by the way) would have a chance to come out mostly fine because it takes PROLONGED exposure (like a full minute at least) to do any real burning!as for the pyroclastic flow, I think it's meant to be taken as a CLOSE-CALL, like the trailer-over-the-cliff scene in the lost world!a feat that is equally UNLIKELY but not impossible
2-"the indoraptor smirk"I will argee it was a bit odd at first. but to me I actually thought it done quite well. Plus, I'm mostly ok with it because:-the indoraptor is HIGHLY intelligent (more so than raptor)-it's an unnatural genetically engineered creature-I like to think it gives "the uncanny-valley" effect
plus I never thought it was cringe, I don't know how one or two people cringe to one scene like that. (especially when there's FAR cringeier moments in JP3 and even more in the comics. trust me the silliness of the comic goes beyond corny)
it was when i viewed a second time that i actually LOVED IT!
because i could understand the given context again and why it was put in.
3-ANIMATRONICS:actually, there's more animatronics than some people have claimed think. I did some research. there are at least 19-21 scenes that DIRECTLY involve a practical effect.it's just that they mixed it in with a small bit of CGI, using the animatronics to get better shading.
(the intended effect is to confuse the audience as to which effect was which)
And in these I counted:-a FULL stegosaurus-a FULL tyrannosaurus rex (rexy)- a FULL RAPTOR (Blue)-a FULL indoraptor arm-a full indoraptor head. (from which we saw the close up of the teeth)
-a full trike (we see it briefly in a cage)
and thats just the ones i could easily count.
the stigy, the carno etc were TEMPLATE MAQTTUESALL OF THEM were done with animatronics (with just a BIT of cgi put in, which they explain here-www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjaqlI…)
the only bits where CGI was added what on the SMALL bits that needed fixing.really that's ROUGHLY the same as the lost world
which had the following..
-a FULL t-rex (two but I'm counting it as one just for argument)
-a baby stegosaur
-a raptor rig suit (it'as unclear if it's one or two that were used)
- a FULL stegosaurus (in a cage)
-a baby trike
-a full pachycelosaurus
Note- I'm NOT counting the ones that were deleted from on-screen use just to be fair)
4- CGI (boy, this one was quite predictable LOL)
everyone who's anyone critics the CGI, claiming it's "not as good as the original" and such. But here's the thing...I THINK THAT'S because people are USED to CGI.
and are always looking for it and it doesn't impact them like it did in 1993
now with that in mind, OBJECTIVELY look at the CGI of fallen kingdom. I might sound balsamic here, but it's actually BETTER!
(in that in some scenes
, you can ACTUALLY count the scales on the animals like the carnotaur scene) Now compare that to the day-time scenes of the first JP. it's is good but a little blurry in places. It's just more noticeable nowadays because of HIGHER quality filmmaking and different technologies.
we don't mind JP's CGI because of the lower quality of film and because of nostalgia.my conclusion on that: our standards are simply too high.
yes, CGI will NEVER look 100% realistic, but I'd be lying to you if i were to say the CGI of fallen kingdom was bad.
ps- the rest of my disagreements are just view-based stuff or stuff that requires context to fully understand. because my reasoning is:
CONTEXT is key!