Have you see this in the theater, or are you judging from the screenshots! The greens never looked orange in the theaters I went to. Flesh tones appeared warm, not blown out. The entire movie has a warm colour timing, just like the original look was. This is stated in the interview at fxguide's website, where they talk about how they meticulously restored the film from the original negative to 4K, and then colour graded it to match the original prints as close as they could. Have you noticed how different the colour is in the stills released in the Jurassic Park official website, from the 2011 Bluray version. It looks miles better, to most and to me as well. Don't base your assumption on any home-video version as they'll likely lead you nowhere, or create false ideas.
I just came from the theater last night. It looked very similar to Indiana Jones in terms of color. No lushness. It simply looked like a modern film with modern color timing. Having seen this on every home video format, it looked nothing like those. They can say it's been timed to match the original, but I've heard those lines before when they turn older film into orange and teal. JP simply ended up with a coating of orange.
Yes a necessary amount of Digital noise Reduction had to be done, as grain cannot be converted to 3D, it creates all sorts of artifacts. But never did I ever notice muddied out shots in any scene, and I am a nitpicky person when it comes to restoration or remastering of a film. I went to watch the movie TWICE in theaters till now, and Never for a moment was there any evidence of muddy or waxy kind of shots.. It looked very clear and highly detailed. The colour looked warm, cinematic and soothing, in short WONDERFUL!
It's not necessary to de-grain, and certainly not that excessively. Titanic looked fantastic. This did not. Any shot with lots of plants was a muddy mess with no visible definition, on par with the original Blu-ray. Any gained fidelity is in close, and even that is sporadic. Top Gun wasn't de-grained at all for its conversion. This is Universal being Universal.
You are seeing too much negative in an overwhelmingly positive re-release. This is the best the movie has ever looked.
I don't take the "best it has ever looked" to mean much when it could look so much better sans DNR. It's the same as, "It looks better than the DVD!" which is also meaningless. It should be so far ahead of it that there is no comparison.
The annoying issues I found was that a lot of shots had been cropped both vertically and horizontally, making an already tight composition even tighter, and making those shots look bad!
You know, I thought so myself. The whole triceratops sequence felt squished to me.
The movie DOES look better than the 2011 Bluray and all previous home video versions already, but I do agree with you that it needs to be out of the itching hands of Universal, and into the hads of Amblin, so that Spielberg can do whatever he wants with JP, he'll not create such poor versions like Universal often does!
Or just did. I glad I could see this in theaters again. Saw it on a faux-IMAX screen which was great. But, the print wasn't up to par. At all. The 3D effect was a success and I look forward to it in the home, but we should be asking for better.