Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are there no good dinosaur films?

briannazigler.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 485 posts

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#271

Post by bambax »

GMoromisato wrote: post #94

The Alien, Terminator, and Matrix franchises have similar problems. Aliens successfully changed genres, from horror to action. But subsequent movies could never recapture the primal horror of the original or the fun action of the second. It's almost like there are only two local optima in the Alien movie universe and Alien + Aliens took them both. Terminator is the same. The first movie was a perfect sci-fi action mo…

Alien 1 is a true masterpiece with real, actual characters and a monster that is terryfing because of how it behaves, not (just) of how it looks. We almost never see it in adult form.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#272

Post by astura »

losvedir wrote: post #110

Can any young person confirm that the original Jurassic Park is actually good? Now that I'm approaching middle age, I can't help but note that a lot of pieces like this are written by similar people who likely have a lot of nostalgia (like me). Like, of course Jurassic Park from my childhood is going to be better than whatever recent stuff came out when I was an adult. But is it actually better? I, like any human, am…

I'm not young, but I have absolutely zero nostalgia for the original Jurassic Park. I think it's a good movie.

I was 10 when it came out and I remember watching it on VHS and thinking it was very, very boring. Didn't finish.

Watched it again in my late teens or early adulthood and I liked it then. The storyline was simple but it was all well done and it had me entertained all the way thru.

I never saw any of the sequels.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#273

Post by [deleted] »

aredox wrote: post #261
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really feel for the Wachoskis. They couldn't not do a sequel, but they had nowhere to go--The Matrix was already perfect. I remember that at the time of the (non-existent ;-) ) sequels, being disappointed with these "sequels", fans wrote summaries of screenplays how a (good) sequel to Matrix might look like. Basically all of them were much better than the official sequel attempt (because such fans really cared),…

Except that there is something called "Intellectual Property" and "copyright" that makes any attempt to use fan fiction a libility and open to endless litigation. J. Michael Straczynski (of _Babylon V_ fame, and many others) immediately blocks anyone who tries to ptch him ideas, and he's not the only one: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/j-michael-straczynski-would-l...

[deleted]

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#274

Post by andrewingram »

GMoromisato wrote: post #94

The Alien, Terminator, and Matrix franchises have similar problems. Aliens successfully changed genres, from horror to action. But subsequent movies could never recapture the primal horror of the original or the fun action of the second. It's almost like there are only two local optima in the Alien movie universe and Alien + Aliens took them both. Terminator is the same. The first movie was a perfect sci-fi action mo…

My take on Terminator is that the portrayal of a bleak late 80s / early 90s LA was a key component of what made the first two movies work. Bringing the Terminator antagonist into a setting in which there's already very little optimism about the future was a key part of the vibe. Subsequent movies have generally taken place in slightly brighter versions of the world, and have never felt right.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#275

Post by aleph_minus_one »

aredox wrote: post #261
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really feel for the Wachoskis. They couldn't not do a sequel, but they had nowhere to go--The Matrix was already perfect. I remember that at the time of the (non-existent ;-) ) sequels, being disappointed with these "sequels", fans wrote summaries of screenplays how a (good) sequel to Matrix might look like. Basically all of them were much better than the official sequel attempt (because such fans really cared),…

Except that there is something called "Intellectual Property" and "copyright" that makes any attempt to use fan fiction a libility and open to endless litigation. J. Michael Straczynski (of _Babylon V_ fame, and many others) immediately blocks anyone who tries to ptch him ideas, and he's not the only one: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/j-michael-straczynski-would-l...

But as a franchise owner, you can have a look into such fan(fiction) forums to recognize writing talents who do care about the franchise and which you might want to hire to work on a screenplay for a sequel.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#276

Post by ekaryotic »

doubleg72 wrote: post #233
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you enjoy the stories, the action scenes and visuals in the sequels were groundbreaking use of CGI in action films. Around the same time the LotR trilogy came out which did something similar. I rewatched the first one the other day and for the most part the visuals and CGI have held up over time, barely any "oh man this is bad CGI lmao" moments. Which somehow got worse with later films, e.g. the Hobbit…

I didn’t think lotr used cgi

the actor that played gandalf ian mckellen? had a minor breakdown on set after he was made to stand on a greenscreen for multiple days.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#277

Post by DennisP »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #127
GMoromisato wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really feel for the Wachoskis. They couldn't not do a sequel, but they had nowhere to go--The Matrix was already perfect. They couldn't recapture the key reveal of the Matrix. It would be like doing a sequel to "The Sixth Sense"--tag line: "He's Still Dead". And without that, it's just another action movie except "bullet time" is no longer innovative. Their solution was to go deeper into the mythology and the large…

I thought the "real" world could have been another simulation after Neo "used the force" in the squiddies in the tunnels - when he then passes out and ends up mentally in the train station thing. Idea being that even those who thought they'd escaped, were still actually within the Matrix. (And Inception hadn't been made back then)

That was my thought at the time. Or maybe even that the real world we actually live in is a simulation, and that by learning to control one, Neo learned to control the other.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#279

Post by darick »

ekaryotic wrote: post #276
doubleg72 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t think lotr used cgi

the actor that played gandalf ian mckellen? had a minor breakdown on set after he was made to stand on a greenscreen for multiple days.

That was on the set of The Hobbit, not LOTR, which used far less CGI

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#280

Post by iainmerrick »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #259
iainmerrick wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main trick is that they set out to make the best and most impressive movie(s) they could with every tool available -- practical effects, old-school camera angle tricks to make the hobbits look small, hordes of extras and well-crafted props, as well as groundbreaking CGI. Same with Jurassic Park, come to think about it -- there's famously more animatronic dinosaurs in that movie than CGI. As opposed to rel…

> As opposed to relying on one shiny new tool to take care of everything. I think with The Hobbit they got over-enamoured with the notion that you can do anything with CGI. But the visuals are The Hobbit's main selling point. People hate it because of the writing.

I was responding to the parent comment, that the CGI somehow got worse with later films, e.g. the Hobbit having a lot of "this is obviously cgi lmao what is this"

I agree with that, The Hobbit looked pretty bad. You're right that part of it was the bad writing, but I think it's a vicious circle -- if you're convinced that CGI can make twenty minutes of elf-vs-goblin parkour look cool, you'll write that into the script.

If instead you started from the viewpoint of, well, we made a successful movie trilogy out of a famous book trilogy; here's another famous and beloved book by the same author, who even went back and revised it to make it fit with the trilogy -- why don't we just use all the tools at our disposal to put that book on the big screen? Maybe that could have resulted in one really good movie.

Post reply on HN