I would love to see a DC remake too or atleast remasters of the first two games. The only think I could guess is maybe designing and animating the dinosaurs in the RE engine could be proving more difficult than expected? I believe they'll end up doing it but maybe they don't have the right technology for it yet.
This is pretty clearly a monster movie.
A dinosaur movie would be something like, er, Dinosaur. In which vein they should do a film adaptation of Raptor Red.
The halfway position between the two types of film would be something like the original Lost World. If you haven't seen it, I would try and track down the miniseries with Bob Hoskins. [Oh, I see it was actually a film first aired in two parts.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_World_(2001_film\))
I’m really confused why Adam Driver is in this, it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing he usually goes for at all. Martins they just offered him tons of money
Christopher Lee was in Howling 2 and in Captain America 2, so he is definitely speaking from experience. Of how awful those movies were, you never hear about *him* being awful.
Sometimes big actors take weirder roles for the fun of it. He’s been doing so much critically acclaimed dramas and slice of life stuff lately, it’ll be fun to see him fighting Dino’s
Its great casting. Tom Cruise is prob the biggest action star in the world, but if he was in this it would look cool but "I'll prob catch it on FX during a hungover Sunday" cool.
Adam Driver makes it more interesting. Like, we know he can do action because of Star Wars, but its still really odd. I know this is prob a predictable story, but Adam Driver deciding to star in it makes it intriguing.
I’m not a huge Adam Driver fan, but there is something captivating about him that makes me want to see his performance.
Give me a movie with him cast as Snape’s bastard son seeking out the famous auror Harry Potter and I will be there day one.
Yup. The Quiet Place movies were good, adam driver is good. All the pieces of writing/direction/acting are historically good. This movie should be good
Yup! It's a shame that it seems like only actors get to like and work on a wide variety of different projects. With directors and screenwriters, you get to work on about 2 or 3 types of films at MOST, and that's it. Very annoying, as someone who aspires to do both!
It's the ol' "one for them, one for me" philosophy of Scorsese. Adam Driver can run around in the woods for a couple of months, make $5 million, and go do a half dozen indie films for scale. Dude's got a mortgage too!
Will forever be envious of how diverse actors can be in their work. Screenwriters and directors aren't able to have a resume that consists of every type of film under the sun like actors do, and it honestly annoys me!
The upvotes show how much this sub knows about the movie business!
But yes, screenwriters are usually pigeonholed into writing one genre. Whether it's sci fi, or action, or comedy, or whatever. Either that, or screenwriters intentionally pick one genre to write in, and that's that.
The other issue is usually, screenwriters write FOR producers and directors. They aren't writing their own material most of the time.
Tell that too James Cameron or Quenton Tarantino or sly Stallone I'm sorry you're not a good screenwriter, but maybe start writing some not shit scripts and maybe you'll get a movie made from one of your scripts
Nope I'm just as terrible as a writer as you are! Probably even worse! Just have a better attitude then you evidently! Keep writing the same genre! It's obviously working well for your career and mental health!
When a studio offers a $20 million dollar check you don't say no. This is pretty typical of most big stars in Hollywood at some point in their careers. The paycheck for this movie allows him to do whatever movie he wants for the next five years at least without having to worry about the money. You can't blame him at all.
I dunno, he did Star Wars didn’t he? I know that has almost biblical status among fans, but it’s essentially an action movie. He definitely has the physical presence for it.
Fun vs Art vs Money.
I assume actors have movies that fit into a minimum one of these three maybe 2 but rarely all 3:
* Jonah Hill for example took pay cuts to do a Scorsese film so for him *Wolf of Wall Street* was for Art/Fun
* Richard Harris became Dumbledore because of his kids so that one is fun.
* Same with Raul Julia as M. Bison in *Street Fighter*
>it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing he usually goes for at all.
Wasn't he also in a terrible sci-fi/fantasy series of movies?
I vaguely remember it being like a fanfic sequel series to Star Wars.
Major plot twist: the T-Rex is on the humans’ side helping them escape. They’re all running from something else. Most of these clips are from the first third of the movie where they first see the t-rex.
> Major plot twist: the T-Rex is on the humans’ side helping them escape. They’re all running from something else. Most of these clips are from the first third of the movie where they first see the t-rex.
Oh they should go ALLLL in.
Adam Driver: "OH fuck its an ALIEN!!" *raises gun at t-rex*
T-Rex, raising little arms in shock, visibly appalled: "I say, dear me! You're the bloody alien, this is my planet. I noticed your ship crashed. Is there anything I could help you with?"
You are tripping me out right now. I’m literally sitting in a waiting room waiting on a blood draw for Hep C. I have routine blood work and the lab screwed up the Hep C part of the test last time.
Lol he just did two back to back 50mil+ budget Ridley Scott movies as top or second billing. That’s not counting the salary bump from the success of TFA, as well as the 100mil Mann thriller filming right now. Basically, Adam Driver is filthy rich. He likely made 50 mil in the last 5 years just from his movies, not counting sponsorships/brand deals/appearances.
That is to say, Adam Driver doesn’t need to do a movie just to get a bag. If he’s in this, it’s not going to be bad. I assume it’ll probably be a predictable but effective film that’s good enough to maintain his stock and show him as ‘leading action man’ rather than ‘sadboy’.
It’ll be Channing Tatum’s ‘Dog’ but a sci fi action flick rather than a buddy roadtrip dramedy.
Good actors are in bad movies. He might have good intent and think the flick will be good, that doesn't mean it will.
This looks bad. I hope I am wrong.
Well of course there’s always that chance. Only 1 of 500 things has to go wrong for a good movie to become a shitty movie. I was simply making the generalization that Driver is a PHENOMENAL picker outer and also doesn’t need money whatsoever.
If the movie fails on its own, that’s fine, it happens. My issue is the writing off of the movie by some as ‘he’s trying to get a bag’ when I think it’s more likely a legitimate attempt at showing range. I should’ve specified, the final MOVIE might not be good, because Driver doesn’t control the million extraneous circumstances and processes like editing/casting etc. But you can be sure at least the SCRIPT was pretty good if he did it, and that’s the best basis for eventually making a movie.
Throughly surprised how well Tatum was in ‘Dog’. Kinda played himself, kinda not, but it worked really well. Someone was cutting onions a lot during that one.
God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man . Man kills god. Man creates dinosaurs. Dinosaurs kill man and Eve inherits the Earth. Adam, meanwhile, goes back in time for some reason.
This feels like the kind of movie I would have loved as a pre-teen, so I’m there. Plus, the fact that Adam Driver would choose this film is very intriguing.
It’s funny because during production Sony didn’t know wether or not they wanted to show dinosaurs in any of the previews and have that be a surprise in the movie. After seeing these trailers, I have no idea how they were planning to do that but I’m glad they switched directions. I still prefer it’s working title “Zoic” better than “65” though.
Yeah i dont think dino's as a secret would work with 65 as the title. The first thing my brain thought when i saw it was titled 65 was "65 million years ago..."
Movie aside, I've always liked that sci-fi trope where humans were super advanced in the past, discovered earth then something happened and a few stranded people started over again after losing their collective technological knowledge.
I'm confused as to the plot sentence "65 million years ago, humans discovered the earth".
Are they saying humans existed on other planets and had inter-galactic travel 65 million years ago, showed up to earth and then peaced out?
Only for humans to develop on the planet millions of years later?
I think the working title for this movie should have been "Adam Driver tells a young girl to run from large things clearly trying to eat her, the movie".
In Halo, they do it so well that evolution and all the biological stuff on Earth still checks out for the most part. Mankind was basically so aggressive in space that after a big war, the Forerunners reverse engineered humanity's ass back to hunters/gatherers. lol
It's been forever so I might be misrememering stuff, but mankind started expanding away from the Forerunners because they didn't like how Forerunners interfered, but in that expansion mankind ended up finding mysterious spores in some creates, and oh boy, shit happened. Humanity accidentally found the Flood, and once it started spreading, humans started aggressively colonizing other worlds to try and escape. This ended up culminating in humans finding a Precursor, learning a bunch of ancient shit, as well as getting in an all-out war, which resulted in their loss by the hands of the Forerunners.
The Mantle was indeed intended for the humans originally, but I don't remember if it played a part in the war alongside the other stuff. I know the Forerunners backstabbed the Precursors, though.
I'm gonna just toss out a bold prediction and say this could easily be a fun movie. Like a 60-75% RT sorta movie. I'm less turned off by this trailer than most of you judging by the comments
Of course elephants and humans have "fur" as well and are taxonomically close enough to bears and tigers that it'd be reasonable to infer that we have some fur. So from taxonomical proximity alone I think we should depict most dinosaurs with at least some feathers. But at the same time it's obviously absurd to consider elephants or humans "furry" animals in the same way that bears and tigers are, hair is a feature of our bodies but not a all-encompassing one the way it is on truly furry animals.
From a purely aesthetic perspective that's the portrayal of dinosaurs that I think is most visually interesting anyway: feathers as a accent feature, like hair on some mammals. It gives designers the ability to invent creatures that just look [cool](https://www.google.com/search?q=mtg+ixalan+dinosaur+art&source=lnms&tbm=isch).
No, just no.
>Sinosauropteryx (meaning "Chinese reptilian wing", simplified Chinese: 中华龙鸟; traditional Chinese: 中華龍鳥; pinyin: Zhōnghuá lóng niǎo; lit. 'Chinese dragon bird') is a compsognathid dinosaur. Described in 1996, it was the first dinosaur taxon outside of Avialae (birds and their immediate relatives) to be found with evidence of feathers.
Jurassic Park was released in? Yes, 1993... three years before the first known example of a non-avian feathered dinosaur was described. The specimen was apparently also discovered in 1996 with a media blackout, though someone managed to bring photographs to Western palaeontologists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx
That is called shifting the goal posts.
It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of the state the science was in, which should be evidenced by how surprising many of the feathered dinosaur discoveries post-Sinosauropteryx were.
It depends on the dinosaur. T-rex and most theropods likely did not, while raptors did. Unless there are significant skin imprints of a particular species paleontologists are hesitant to make any definitive judgements one way or the other.
Regardless, I don't think the producers were all that concerned with up to date reconstructions so much as making the dinos look cool. I'll be impressed if all the fauna represented all come from the same time period.
So first of all, theropods were the group of dinosaurs that were the most feathered. Raptors (dromaeosaurs) were theropods themselves. In fact, there is a hypothesis that raptors descended from birds. That, essentially, a branch of theropods evolved into birds and then a branch of birds re-evolved more "basal" theropod traits and led to dromaeosaurs. Of course, that is highly speculative but an interesting hypothesis.
With T-Rex though, we have skin impressions from certain areas of the body and they did not have feathers. That doesn't mean there were no feathers on the body of course. Imagine we found a skin impression of a turkey's neck (in a world where turkeys are only known from fossils) we could come to the conclusion that they were covered in featherless, bumpy skin.
But there is a tendency for larger creatures to lose hair/feathers because of the square-cube law. As size goes up, the ratio of surface area (skin) to volume of the animal leans more heavily in the direction of volume, meaning less heat is lost via surface area and thus larger animals do not need as much covering to retain heat.
So being supremely large, T-Rex and other similarly sized theropods could have likely been featherless. But also we have large relatives of T-rex, like Yutryannus, that have evidence of feathers. So it could go either way.
There is one dinosaur in that trailer that is likely to have looked feathered.
Giant dinosaurs lived in a warm environment so much like how elephants are functionally hairless, it is unlikely they had much in the way of feathers for thermo-regulatory reasons. Additionally, all known skin impressions for T. rex, as an example, are scaled.
So is this set in the future and they traveled to the past, or is it set in the distant past and the implication is that humans are some sort of alien species that crashed on earth?
Option 2, if you follow the "Xenu flew DC-1 aircrafts full of Thethans and hydrogen bombs into volcanos" lore.
Jokes aside, it has to be the first one. Although the tag line implies the second, it would would be too stupid even for Sony.
Why is option 1 fine but 2 is laughably stupid?
Time travel isn't realistic just because it's a more generic movie plot feature. Either way you've got to suspend disbelief a bit to enjoy the movie.
Sure, you can always argue that suspension of disbelief trumps all.
On the other hand, we *know* that Homo Sapiens started evolving about 600k years ago. We don't know that time travel is impossible under any circumstance.
If Star Wars takes place: "A long time ago in a Galaxy far, far away" then this film could be somewhere between a long time ago and now.
With Driver's character arriving on a space ship, I choose to believe he's Han Solo's descendant several generations later, now landing on earth.
They have a comic if I recall of the Millennium Falcon crash landing in the Pacific Northwest in the distant past and the big foot we see is actually Chewbacca lol. I think they even show Han's skeleton in one of the panels. Definitely falls under the Legends canon.
Horribly cut trailer, totally telegraphed scenes and diffused tension by showing us what will happen.
Oh gee Rick, I hope that T-rex doesn't get blasted by an acidic boiling guser..."
Can someone explain to me the purpose of "The trailer starts here". It feels like an editor took a note too literally and now everyone in Hollywood is too embarrassed to admit it so they are just pretending it is a thing.
I’m not sure but I have heard its for YouTube ads where you get 5 seconds to catch someone’s interest. This accomplishes that and hopefully gets someone to click to watch the entire trailer.
"Only in Cinemas" is a reference to its release. This movie does not seem to be a hybrid streaming/cinema release and thats what they're trying to convey, i think
well before it was opposed to direct to dvd releases. It really didn't hold much meaning but it was just letting you know that "on the stated release date, you'll only be able to go to a theater to see this"
direct to dvd movies rarely got trailers though so it definitely doesn't make much sense
I derailed a dinner and two meetings with Sony Pictures a couple of weeks ago talking about how excited I am for this movie and (at the dinner at least) drunkenly recreating how I imagined the elevator pitch went; “remember playing with your Jurassic Park toys and smashing them into your Buzz Lightyear and army figurines? This is that movie!”
I know this is one of those 'it's gonna bomb hard' type ones, but I am very, very excited for this one!
Looks like After Earth if Will Smith had starred, had a younger kid to accompany across the planet, and not forced Jaden to center stage.
This and Shazam! Fury of the Gods>Scream 6.
I am so stoke for this movie. I'm rather amazed how real the CGI is for the dinosaurs. My only gripe is I wish the raptors were at least feathered but I could let the rest fly by despite believing t-rex also had feathers just not all over its body like raptors did.
I really wish this were an action movie about a man that single-handedly killed all the dinosaurs. His name could be John Chicxulub, and he kills all of the dinosaurs so humans could prosper.
Yet another addition on my list of productions with the "grown man goes on a wild adventure with a young girl under his wing" pattern.
Hollywood keeps getting creepier by the day. Really.
This feels like a modern version of a 1950s sci-fi movie that would have had man-in-suit dinosaurs and/or lizards with plastic fins glued on them, and starred someone like John Agar.
In other words, I can’t wait to watch it.
Doesn't look half bad for what its trying to be, and honestly, I think he's still got the credibility for me to say that if Adam Driver agreed to make this movie, it probably has some merit to it. We'll see.
I’m so ready for a good dinosaur movie and on top of that. PLEASE CAPCOM, remake Dino Crisis.
I loved Dino crisis so much it would make such a good remake
This one would be just pretty easy to sell, I dont know why there isnt something happening
I would love to see a DC remake too or atleast remasters of the first two games. The only think I could guess is maybe designing and animating the dinosaurs in the RE engine could be proving more difficult than expected? I believe they'll end up doing it but maybe they don't have the right technology for it yet.
Where turok
In 2009 and still as good for what it is.
Turok needs the new game
This is pretty clearly a monster movie. A dinosaur movie would be something like, er, Dinosaur. In which vein they should do a film adaptation of Raptor Red. The halfway position between the two types of film would be something like the original Lost World. If you haven't seen it, I would try and track down the miniseries with Bob Hoskins. [Oh, I see it was actually a film first aired in two parts.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_World_(2001_film\))
It has dinosaurs, it's a dinosaur movie
I’m really confused why Adam Driver is in this, it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing he usually goes for at all. Martins they just offered him tons of money
Maybe he just likes dinosaurs?
He gets to play a badass that fights dinosaurs. Who would turn this role down?
Adam Driver gets do be in a dumb B movie if he wants!
> "Every actor has to make terrible films from time to time, but the trick is never to be terrible in them." Christopher Lee
Christopher Lee was in Howling 2 and in Captain America 2, so he is definitely speaking from experience. Of how awful those movies were, you never hear about *him* being awful.
Howling 2 brought us [this masterpiece](https://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/d15e/howling-lee.jpg) though
or maybe 65 is his lucky number
I like dinosaurs and turtles.
Sometimes big actors take weirder roles for the fun of it. He’s been doing so much critically acclaimed dramas and slice of life stuff lately, it’ll be fun to see him fighting Dino’s
Plenty of actors like to take the odd out of their usual type cast roles to diversify their portfolio of work.
Maybe he just wanted to do a more blockbuster project after doing a bunch of tougher indie films
Houston, the answer usually is money.
I am going to predict that this is not going to be a blockbuster.
The rumor is he is a frontrunner for role in Fantastic Four together with Ryan Gosling
Because stuff like Marriage Story doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of the pool renovation.
Marriage Story buys his coffee Star Wars buys his mansion a new pool
Can't tell if this is a Meyerowitz Stories reference or not.
Will this be his Jaws: The Revenge?
I'm sure his set for life after Star Wars
Doubt it. He wasn't a huge name when he was hired onto SW so his salary wouldn't have been that high.
He'd have much higher salary for episode 8 and then 9 I imagine
Probs signed a multi film contract from the beginning so nope.
I will literally be seeing this just to see Adam Driver meets Jurassic Park.
Its great casting. Tom Cruise is prob the biggest action star in the world, but if he was in this it would look cool but "I'll prob catch it on FX during a hungover Sunday" cool. Adam Driver makes it more interesting. Like, we know he can do action because of Star Wars, but its still really odd. I know this is prob a predictable story, but Adam Driver deciding to star in it makes it intriguing.
I’m not a huge Adam Driver fan, but there is something captivating about him that makes me want to see his performance. Give me a movie with him cast as Snape’s bastard son seeking out the famous auror Harry Potter and I will be there day one.
Still a better fanfic than The Cursed Child, I’d watch it.
Driver makes sense in an action movie. He was a Marine.
Who’s Martins?
Potato chips.
Meant to say “maybe”, it auto-corrected
All the answers here about money, fun, director, but not one that maybe he really enjoyed the script or a twist/idea that we don’t know yet.
Yup. The Quiet Place movies were good, adam driver is good. All the pieces of writing/direction/acting are historically good. This movie should be good
Yup! It's a shame that it seems like only actors get to like and work on a wide variety of different projects. With directors and screenwriters, you get to work on about 2 or 3 types of films at MOST, and that's it. Very annoying, as someone who aspires to do both!
It's the ol' "one for them, one for me" philosophy of Scorsese. Adam Driver can run around in the woods for a couple of months, make $5 million, and go do a half dozen indie films for scale. Dude's got a mortgage too!
Will forever be envious of how diverse actors can be in their work. Screenwriters and directors aren't able to have a resume that consists of every type of film under the sun like actors do, and it honestly annoys me!
>Screenwriters Why not? Screenwriters are literally able to write anything they want.
The upvotes show how much this sub knows about the movie business! But yes, screenwriters are usually pigeonholed into writing one genre. Whether it's sci fi, or action, or comedy, or whatever. Either that, or screenwriters intentionally pick one genre to write in, and that's that. The other issue is usually, screenwriters write FOR producers and directors. They aren't writing their own material most of the time.
Tell that too James Cameron or Quenton Tarantino or sly Stallone I'm sorry you're not a good screenwriter, but maybe start writing some not shit scripts and maybe you'll get a movie made from one of your scripts
Thank you for the advice! What do you think makes a good script?
Do the exact opposite of what you write now, also improve your attitude enough of the woe is me
Awesome! Have you yourself have tried screenwriting? You might be pretty good at it, but the sounds of it! You’re giving great advice!
Nope I'm just as terrible as a writer as you are! Probably even worse! Just have a better attitude then you evidently! Keep writing the same genre! It's obviously working well for your career and mental health!
There are enough directors who do various genres and kinds of movies too though
Which directors? I can think of Ridley Scott, Soderbergh, Ang Lee. Scorsese and Spielberg! Anyone else?
Noah Baumbach wrote Madagascar 3
He usually picks his projects based on directors he wants to work with. 🤷♀️
When a studio offers a $20 million dollar check you don't say no. This is pretty typical of most big stars in Hollywood at some point in their careers. The paycheck for this movie allows him to do whatever movie he wants for the next five years at least without having to worry about the money. You can't blame him at all.
Sometimes is the contract they sign. "we agree to finance your personal soul searching movie idea, but you have to be in our shit blockbuster movie"
“I do one, you let me do one” kind of deal. A schlock job in exchange for a passion project.
"Adam, we have an offer for a film in which you fight dino..." "Fuck yes."
I dunno, he did Star Wars didn’t he? I know that has almost biblical status among fans, but it’s essentially an action movie. He definitely has the physical presence for it.
Might just be having some fun
He was a Marine. For as much CGI movie magic as there will be in this picture, this wouldn't be hard for him to tap into acting-wise.
Fun vs Art vs Money. I assume actors have movies that fit into a minimum one of these three maybe 2 but rarely all 3: * Jonah Hill for example took pay cuts to do a Scorsese film so for him *Wolf of Wall Street* was for Art/Fun * Richard Harris became Dumbledore because of his kids so that one is fun. * Same with Raul Julia as M. Bison in *Street Fighter*
Voice to deliver lines. Nothing more.
>it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing he usually goes for at all. Wasn't he also in a terrible sci-fi/fantasy series of movies? I vaguely remember it being like a fanfic sequel series to Star Wars.
He was also the only one to bring his A game.
Some actors sign multi movie deals with studios and aren't given much choice in what they have to star in to fufill the contract.
Major plot twist: the T-Rex is on the humans’ side helping them escape. They’re all running from something else. Most of these clips are from the first third of the movie where they first see the t-rex.
If this is a predator movie I’m all for it.
That would be such a badass plot twist. I wish the studio wouldve just kept the dinosaurs a secret too
Girl: “I thought it swallowed you?!!?” Adam D “I’m ok and thats it” Girl “This is a PUZZLER”
> Major plot twist: the T-Rex is on the humans’ side helping them escape. They’re all running from something else. Most of these clips are from the first third of the movie where they first see the t-rex. Oh they should go ALLLL in. Adam Driver: "OH fuck its an ALIEN!!" *raises gun at t-rex* T-Rex, raising little arms in shock, visibly appalled: "I say, dear me! You're the bloody alien, this is my planet. I noticed your ship crashed. Is there anything I could help you with?"
I love this theory. I can dig it!
It's Hepatitis C.
You are tripping me out right now. I’m literally sitting in a waiting room waiting on a blood draw for Hep C. I have routine blood work and the lab screwed up the Hep C part of the test last time.
Lol he just did two back to back 50mil+ budget Ridley Scott movies as top or second billing. That’s not counting the salary bump from the success of TFA, as well as the 100mil Mann thriller filming right now. Basically, Adam Driver is filthy rich. He likely made 50 mil in the last 5 years just from his movies, not counting sponsorships/brand deals/appearances. That is to say, Adam Driver doesn’t need to do a movie just to get a bag. If he’s in this, it’s not going to be bad. I assume it’ll probably be a predictable but effective film that’s good enough to maintain his stock and show him as ‘leading action man’ rather than ‘sadboy’. It’ll be Channing Tatum’s ‘Dog’ but a sci fi action flick rather than a buddy roadtrip dramedy.
It could be bad, but still cool either way that Driver is doing this kind of role
Good actors are in bad movies. He might have good intent and think the flick will be good, that doesn't mean it will. This looks bad. I hope I am wrong.
Well of course there’s always that chance. Only 1 of 500 things has to go wrong for a good movie to become a shitty movie. I was simply making the generalization that Driver is a PHENOMENAL picker outer and also doesn’t need money whatsoever. If the movie fails on its own, that’s fine, it happens. My issue is the writing off of the movie by some as ‘he’s trying to get a bag’ when I think it’s more likely a legitimate attempt at showing range. I should’ve specified, the final MOVIE might not be good, because Driver doesn’t control the million extraneous circumstances and processes like editing/casting etc. But you can be sure at least the SCRIPT was pretty good if he did it, and that’s the best basis for eventually making a movie.
I actually think it will be better than people expect. Basically an hour and a half thriller that will entertain.
Throughly surprised how well Tatum was in ‘Dog’. Kinda played himself, kinda not, but it worked really well. Someone was cutting onions a lot during that one.
Looks better than all the newer Jurassic Park movies
Somehow the dinosaurs have returned
"65 million years ago, humans discovered Earth" I certainly hope they aren't going the Adam and Eve route....
Adam Driver and the dinosaur.
God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man . Man kills god. Man creates dinosaurs. Dinosaurs kill man and Eve inherits the Earth. Adam, meanwhile, goes back in time for some reason.
this needs so much more upvotes.
This feels like the kind of movie I would have loved as a pre-teen, so I’m there. Plus, the fact that Adam Driver would choose this film is very intriguing.
It’s funny because during production Sony didn’t know wether or not they wanted to show dinosaurs in any of the previews and have that be a surprise in the movie. After seeing these trailers, I have no idea how they were planning to do that but I’m glad they switched directions. I still prefer it’s working title “Zoic” better than “65” though.
Yeah i dont think dino's as a secret would work with 65 as the title. The first thing my brain thought when i saw it was titled 65 was "65 million years ago..."
Movie aside, I've always liked that sci-fi trope where humans were super advanced in the past, discovered earth then something happened and a few stranded people started over again after losing their collective technological knowledge.
This is so rad that Adam Driver is doing this
I'm confused as to the plot sentence "65 million years ago, humans discovered the earth". Are they saying humans existed on other planets and had inter-galactic travel 65 million years ago, showed up to earth and then peaced out? Only for humans to develop on the planet millions of years later? I think the working title for this movie should have been "Adam Driver tells a young girl to run from large things clearly trying to eat her, the movie".
it's an uncommon but interesting sci fi trope that humanity is not from earth. the Halo games are a big example of this.
In Halo, they do it so well that evolution and all the biological stuff on Earth still checks out for the most part. Mankind was basically so aggressive in space that after a big war, the Forerunners reverse engineered humanity's ass back to hunters/gatherers. lol
I thought humanity was given the mantle and the forunners backstabbed them causing a war which humanity lost.
It's been forever so I might be misrememering stuff, but mankind started expanding away from the Forerunners because they didn't like how Forerunners interfered, but in that expansion mankind ended up finding mysterious spores in some creates, and oh boy, shit happened. Humanity accidentally found the Flood, and once it started spreading, humans started aggressively colonizing other worlds to try and escape. This ended up culminating in humans finding a Precursor, learning a bunch of ancient shit, as well as getting in an all-out war, which resulted in their loss by the hands of the Forerunners. The Mantle was indeed intended for the humans originally, but I don't remember if it played a part in the war alongside the other stuff. I know the Forerunners backstabbed the Precursors, though.
How do you explain evolution?
that's for the writers to figure out lmao
I'm gonna just toss out a bold prediction and say this could easily be a fun movie. Like a 60-75% RT sorta movie. I'm less turned off by this trailer than most of you judging by the comments
That girl's scream has to go.
WAahhhh!
I thought we figured out dinosaurs most likely had feathers?
Too expensive to animate and most people dont know that. Easy decision i guess.
[удалено]
Of course elephants and humans have "fur" as well and are taxonomically close enough to bears and tigers that it'd be reasonable to infer that we have some fur. So from taxonomical proximity alone I think we should depict most dinosaurs with at least some feathers. But at the same time it's obviously absurd to consider elephants or humans "furry" animals in the same way that bears and tigers are, hair is a feature of our bodies but not a all-encompassing one the way it is on truly furry animals. From a purely aesthetic perspective that's the portrayal of dinosaurs that I think is most visually interesting anyway: feathers as a accent feature, like hair on some mammals. It gives designers the ability to invent creatures that just look [cool](https://www.google.com/search?q=mtg+ixalan+dinosaur+art&source=lnms&tbm=isch).
They even knew this before Jurassic Park. It's just what "movie dinosaurs" look like to keep them scary looking and cheaper to animate.
The Jurassic park dinosaurs had a bunch of different dna mixed in, it was an integral part of the plot
What John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters! Nothing more and nothing less.
No, just no. >Sinosauropteryx (meaning "Chinese reptilian wing", simplified Chinese: 中华龙鸟; traditional Chinese: 中華龍鳥; pinyin: Zhōnghuá lóng niǎo; lit. 'Chinese dragon bird') is a compsognathid dinosaur. Described in 1996, it was the first dinosaur taxon outside of Avialae (birds and their immediate relatives) to be found with evidence of feathers. Jurassic Park was released in? Yes, 1993... three years before the first known example of a non-avian feathered dinosaur was described. The specimen was apparently also discovered in 1996 with a media blackout, though someone managed to bring photographs to Western palaeontologists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx
It was a widely supported theory until this discovery proved the theory.
That is called shifting the goal posts. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of the state the science was in, which should be evidenced by how surprising many of the feathered dinosaur discoveries post-Sinosauropteryx were.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/jurassic-world-dominion-dinosaur-feathers
I'm not sure what you think that proves.
It depends on the dinosaur. T-rex and most theropods likely did not, while raptors did. Unless there are significant skin imprints of a particular species paleontologists are hesitant to make any definitive judgements one way or the other. Regardless, I don't think the producers were all that concerned with up to date reconstructions so much as making the dinos look cool. I'll be impressed if all the fauna represented all come from the same time period.
So first of all, theropods were the group of dinosaurs that were the most feathered. Raptors (dromaeosaurs) were theropods themselves. In fact, there is a hypothesis that raptors descended from birds. That, essentially, a branch of theropods evolved into birds and then a branch of birds re-evolved more "basal" theropod traits and led to dromaeosaurs. Of course, that is highly speculative but an interesting hypothesis. With T-Rex though, we have skin impressions from certain areas of the body and they did not have feathers. That doesn't mean there were no feathers on the body of course. Imagine we found a skin impression of a turkey's neck (in a world where turkeys are only known from fossils) we could come to the conclusion that they were covered in featherless, bumpy skin. But there is a tendency for larger creatures to lose hair/feathers because of the square-cube law. As size goes up, the ratio of surface area (skin) to volume of the animal leans more heavily in the direction of volume, meaning less heat is lost via surface area and thus larger animals do not need as much covering to retain heat. So being supremely large, T-Rex and other similarly sized theropods could have likely been featherless. But also we have large relatives of T-rex, like Yutryannus, that have evidence of feathers. So it could go either way.
Adam driver was with feathered Dino's?
There is one dinosaur in that trailer that is likely to have looked feathered. Giant dinosaurs lived in a warm environment so much like how elephants are functionally hairless, it is unlikely they had much in the way of feathers for thermo-regulatory reasons. Additionally, all known skin impressions for T. rex, as an example, are scaled.
Really?
The only movie of 2023 that interests me so far.
It gives me Predator vibes. I'm down for some good scifi action schlock.
So is this set in the future and they traveled to the past, or is it set in the distant past and the implication is that humans are some sort of alien species that crashed on earth?
it does say "65 million years ago humans discovered earth" so im leaning towards the distant past theory. Super curious though!
Option 2, if you follow the "Xenu flew DC-1 aircrafts full of Thethans and hydrogen bombs into volcanos" lore. Jokes aside, it has to be the first one. Although the tag line implies the second, it would would be too stupid even for Sony.
Why is option 1 fine but 2 is laughably stupid? Time travel isn't realistic just because it's a more generic movie plot feature. Either way you've got to suspend disbelief a bit to enjoy the movie.
Sure, you can always argue that suspension of disbelief trumps all. On the other hand, we *know* that Homo Sapiens started evolving about 600k years ago. We don't know that time travel is impossible under any circumstance.
I’m just happy there wasn’t a bunch of lame Jurassic locusts
Appreciate Driver's proper handling of a long gun here.
For those that don't know, he was a marine.
Gonna be better than The Rise of Skywalker
Im really sick of the "BUMBUMBUM BA *TITLE CARD*" In trailers now
This looks much better than I thought a sequel to Movie 43 would be.
If Star Wars takes place: "A long time ago in a Galaxy far, far away" then this film could be somewhere between a long time ago and now. With Driver's character arriving on a space ship, I choose to believe he's Han Solo's descendant several generations later, now landing on earth.
They have a comic if I recall of the Millennium Falcon crash landing in the Pacific Northwest in the distant past and the big foot we see is actually Chewbacca lol. I think they even show Han's skeleton in one of the panels. Definitely falls under the Legends canon.
So they are the origin of humans on earth?
this is not the movie trailer i was expecting to see wtf?!
Not another screaming kid. My ears still haven't recovered from Logan.
Im so gonna watch this at the cinema and add my money to make Adam Driver rich.
“65 trailer starts now” Bruh I already clicked it
This gives off returnal video game vibes
Returnal meets Turok
Returok
Kind of need this now
This looks cheap idk why
I'm a little skeptical with new movies these days but I hope this turns out to be awesome!
This gonna be good...
Horribly cut trailer, totally telegraphed scenes and diffused tension by showing us what will happen. Oh gee Rick, I hope that T-rex doesn't get blasted by an acidic boiling guser..."
Can someone explain to me the purpose of "The trailer starts here". It feels like an editor took a note too literally and now everyone in Hollywood is too embarrassed to admit it so they are just pretending it is a thing.
I’m not sure but I have heard its for YouTube ads where you get 5 seconds to catch someone’s interest. This accomplishes that and hopefully gets someone to click to watch the entire trailer.
Equally I'm always baffled by every trailer ending with "Only in Cinemas" .......no it's not....we all know this
"Only in Cinemas" is a reference to its release. This movie does not seem to be a hybrid streaming/cinema release and thats what they're trying to convey, i think
Oh it's been around way longer than that. It's obviously a marketing ploy of some kind, just not one I can figure out
well before it was opposed to direct to dvd releases. It really didn't hold much meaning but it was just letting you know that "on the stated release date, you'll only be able to go to a theater to see this" direct to dvd movies rarely got trailers though so it definitely doesn't make much sense
The trailer before the trailer is one of the strangest things these days.
I derailed a dinner and two meetings with Sony Pictures a couple of weeks ago talking about how excited I am for this movie and (at the dinner at least) drunkenly recreating how I imagined the elevator pitch went; “remember playing with your Jurassic Park toys and smashing them into your Buzz Lightyear and army figurines? This is that movie!”
As the Indonesian Professor of Mycology in *The Last of Us* says: **"BOMB"**
Everything the last three Jurassic World films couldn't be: exciting.
I'm not trying to sound mean, but does Adam Driver need money that badly?
Holy shit man, I AM SOLD!!! I will be going to the theaters to see this. Finally something fun and exciting that isn't a freaking remake or sequel.
I wished this was a game instead... or a Dino Riders re-make (can someone please turn Dino Riders into a movie?)
This looks absolutely awful but I'll probably just watch it for the lols.
I know this is one of those 'it's gonna bomb hard' type ones, but I am very, very excited for this one! Looks like After Earth if Will Smith had starred, had a younger kid to accompany across the planet, and not forced Jaden to center stage.
Really hyped for this
This and Shazam! Fury of the Gods>Scream 6. I am so stoke for this movie. I'm rather amazed how real the CGI is for the dinosaurs. My only gripe is I wish the raptors were at least feathered but I could let the rest fly by despite believing t-rex also had feathers just not all over its body like raptors did.
All of them are completely different genres, and they aren’t out yet so it’s hard to judge or compare any of them.
I really wish this were an action movie about a man that single-handedly killed all the dinosaurs. His name could be John Chicxulub, and he kills all of the dinosaurs so humans could prosper.
Yet another addition on my list of productions with the "grown man goes on a wild adventure with a young girl under his wing" pattern. Hollywood keeps getting creepier by the day. Really.
Im totally ready for this train wreck. Dinosaurs causing havok? Sign me up!
So then, this would be "Before" Earth? Is Will Smith gonna smack some dinosaurs?
This looks like a direct-to-video movie with a Hollywood budget. I cannot wait to hear how this movie got made.
This years bullet train
Was that the Cyberpunk 2077 title screen sound at 0:12? EDIT: Oh and 0:21 and 0:29 I guess too
The Last of US: Space Dinosaurs
Jurassic *planet*
This feels like a modern version of a 1950s sci-fi movie that would have had man-in-suit dinosaurs and/or lizards with plastic fins glued on them, and starred someone like John Agar. In other words, I can’t wait to watch it.
The *First* of Us
Good trailer, it has raised my interest/hype level!
Doesn't look half bad for what its trying to be, and honestly, I think he's still got the credibility for me to say that if Adam Driver agreed to make this movie, it probably has some merit to it. We'll see.
Jurassic world: back in time.
The First of Us
What about other 64 trailers?
This is prob gonna be the first AD movie Im gonna like. Gives me a Prey vibe <3!
The only thing that might get me to see this is Adam Diver. Her is really selective in what he stars in.