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

311–320 of 485 posts

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#311

Post by danielvaughn »

I admit that I didn’t read the entire thing, but god I disagree with the first half so hard.

A couple months ago I decided to read Jurassic Park. I loved the movie as a kid - saw it in theaters at 10 years old.

The novel did have some interesting components to it that weren’t in the film. The first sections go into the financial politics of Silicon Valley in the 80’s, and it makes for really fun reading as a technologist. There are also sections of code in the novel, and Malcolm points out a fairly obvious bug in it. That was neat.

But the film elevates the story in so many ways that it’s difficult to overstate. Book Malcolm is a humorless blowhard who pontificates with these endless monologues that made me roll my eyes. It’s presented as deep insight but it’s fairly obvious “humans want to conquer nature but they can’t”. Which is pretty much the same message that’s conveyed in the film, but at least the film doesn’t sound so pretentious. In contrast, movie Malcolm is unforgettable.

The change to Hammond from book to film is also an improvement IMO. He’s more sympathetic as an idealist who’s simply gotten in over his head. If novel Hammond had been the first to die I wouldn’t have cared at all, he was a pure asshole.

I could go on, but this one line from the post really stuck out: “Jurassic Park did its part in the slow demise of the American blockbuster ecosystem”. What the fuck is he talking about? Jurassic Park is one of the best movies ever made - the endless parade of crap movies that have come out since aren’t crap because of Jurassic Park. They’re crap because we compare them to Jurassic Park.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#312

Post by triceratops »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #230
pferde wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix 4 did not do much of anything with, well, anything. Maybe except for the meta-commentary in the first act where the lead character is hesitant to make a pointless sequel to a popular franchise, but is forced to by his corporate abusers.

The Wachowskis weren't forced to, they, as humans, have the power to say "nu-uh". But I suppose they were made an offer they couldn't refuse. Or worse: WB owned the franchise and were going to make a sequel with or without them (or the actors). I'm sure the franchise will get a "hard" reboot at some point.

> I'm sure the franchise will get a "hard" reboot at some point.

As the Matrix itself did, according to the Architect.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#313

Post by triceratops »

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...

Why can't you buy the idea from whatever forum poster?

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#314

Post by piltdownman »

quacked wrote: post #111
mpalmer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This applies to most modern scripts. Writers/studios have largely decided people don't care about detailed, reasoned-out worlds with unspoken "show-don't-tell" internal logic. Are they wrong? I shudder to consider. Shows like Better Call Saul and Andor are the most recent high-profile counter-examples. So detailed and lived-in, because the writers wanted to ask interesting questions: How does the Empire do what it do…

I highly disagree that Andor feels highly detailed or lived-in; it's like acting school charades level depictions of rural people, imperial bureaucrats, high society parties, etc. This is especially bad in season 2. I agree from a writing standpoint these are very interesting lines to follow, but the execution is just severely lacking. I don't think the writers have really ever met or spent time with farmers, infantr…

While I agree with you somewhat on the bucolic Vichy-Resistance of Ghormann, the realisation of the Civil Service danse macabre as per Le Carre is beautifully realised - just so long as you realise it takes the 'House of Cards' lense rather than the 'Yes Minister' one.

Even from the first episode you can see where they strive to portray realistic scenarios setpieces; particularly the first exchange between Hyne and Karn, contrasting the ideological and the real politik - "They were in a brоthеl, which we're not supposed to have, the expensive one, which they shouldn't be able to afford, drinking Revnog, which we're not supposed to allow."

It's Partagaz though who really hammers home the mundane grimness of the vocation. While best known for his snappy-rejoinder based management style - "It’s an assignment. Calibrate your enthusiasm" - it's in his measured belicoise jingoism that you get a sense of the true appetites of the Imperium, and the mandate which they see as distinguishing themselves - "Security is an illusion. You want security? Call the Navy. Launch a regiment of troopers. We are healthcare providers. We treat sickness."

The High-Society parties thing is more a Chandrillan society thing - hyper-ritualistic aristocrats eking out their existence in dinner parties and charitable trusts, while trying to both publicly endorse and privately mitigate the new-found adherence to traditional values that typify the generation in ascent. The stilted conversation, the reserved displays of emotion, the proportioned but spartan architecture, all speak to the gilded cage in which they reside - culturally, socially, and politically.

As for the infantrymen, 'tough guys' etc... I can immediately reference one of the most nuanced and best portrayed characters in the whole canon - Alex Ferns' depiction of Sergeant Linus Mosk, which almost matches his Coal Miner in Chernobyl in terms of sheer celluloid plausability.

It's the 'Don't trouble yourself writing the memorandum' school of control and intimidation, utterly distinct from the previous iteration of the antagonist and his 'I find your lack of faith disturbing' scenery-chewing which may make these hard to bridge.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#315

Post by aleph_minus_one »

bmacho wrote: post #303
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hallucinogens were definitely involved. If these result in better movies: why not?

I have this theory that maybe governments should ban all the art that were produced by methods that are harmful for the artists, just to level the playing field. Similarly how athletes are not allowed to take a ton of pills, win everything, and then die in years. (Tho athletes are in a much direct competition with each other, than artists.)

> Similarly how athletes are not allowed to take a ton of pills, win everything, and then die in years. (Tho athletes are in a much direct competition with each other, than artists.)

The Australian businessman Aron D'Souza plans to do such a competition:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Games

According to the Wikipedia article, the first competition of the Enhanced Games is scheduled for May 2026.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#317

Post by IAmBroom »

mavhc wrote: post #292
Loughla wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also have the mix of both where they make an amazing show based on novels then ruin the entire world with terrible writing when the source material runs dry. Glares at Game of Thrones

Still the best ending that's ever going to be written

I see what you did there.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#319

Post by aleph_minus_one »

triceratops wrote: post #313
aredox wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why can't you buy the idea from whatever forum poster?

I get aredox' point that copyright at least makes some things more complicated.

See for example the drama around Darkover fanfiction ([1], [2]):

Quote from [1]:

"For many years, Bradley actively encouraged Darkover fan fiction. She encouraged submissions from unpublished authors and reprinted some of it in commercial Darkover anthologies. This ended after a dispute with a fan over an unpublished Darkover novel of Bradley's that had similarities to one of the fan's stories. As a result, the novel remained unpublished and Bradley demanded the cessation of all Darkover fan fiction."

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Zimmer_Bra...

[2] https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/articl...

Post reply on HN