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/c on the lot and then finding it never existed.
1. Trailer 1 screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/bqkryTL.jpg
2. Trailer 2 screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/A9uVtnx.jpg
1. Trailer: http://youtu.be/638S8n2_Ab8?t=1m44s
2. Spoiler: http://youtu.be/s2wBtcmE5W8?t=1m28s
I didn't notice this in the film because I was too busy fighting back the vomit from motion sickness.
Driving home that night wasn't fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxuxrLNrsw
My guess is that it was going to be part of the movie but ended up getting cut for editing reasons. (The whole "hair as weapon" bit is probably inconsistent with character for the rest of the movie)
IMO the Hobbit trilogy was pure indulgence.
It's definitely subtle, but a good amount of film making (or hell, photography) is that way.
Here are a few of my favorites:
Edgar Wright - How to Do Visual Comedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOzD4Sfgag
The Silence of the Lambs - Who Wins the Scene? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V-k-p4wzxg
Michael Bay - What is Bayhem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q
The only weird thing about Jurassic Park 2 was the overuse of the T-Rex head. But the rest never feels "Hollywoodky".
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're watching a movie.
Apparently it is four minutes of CG out of fourteen minutes of dinosaur effects. But four minutes of CG is a lot of shots for the era.
For a good discussion and some links to background, see this recent Language Log post: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=16394
* I restricted my assertion to English because I don't know one way or the other if other languages tend to this sort of evolution. My impression is that particular languages tend to be open to some types of changes and less open to others, but that which changes varies from language to language.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/6f34d860df950131725e005056a954...
That's kind of an amazing aspect of English as a language; you can misuse words entirely, yet still convey a message. I wonder if this linguistic flexibility is due to the fact that our language is a mixture of so many other languages with disparate grammatical rules.
I think the evolution of English through new word use is generally an excellent and exciting thing. It can just be a little disconcerting adjusting to new usage (at least new for me personally, in this case).
I didn't notice the header. However, I did appreciate that they changed the mountains on the smartphone picture to match the updated landscape.
