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

361–370 of 485 posts

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#361

Post by thorin »

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

It didn't use anywhere near as much as the hobbit, but lots of things are enhanced. I have a similar problem with Avengers/Marvel which just doesn't look great to me. Avatar did look very good though. The main problem I have with CGI is if the story isn't there, which for me is definitely the case with most Avengers movies which are just a mess.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#362

Post by regularfry »

LexGray wrote: post #162
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Alien 3. The grand bleak architecture and raw, basic reality of the lives and location. Initially I disliked (like everyone else) killing off Hicks and Newt so unceremoniously after their being Ripley's "great success" of Aliens. But it sets the consistent, depressing tone of the film, which is maintained throughout. I think there's a Quake aesthetic as well, which I have a pronounced soft spot for (in additio…

The tragedy of Alien 3 is that there was far better lore in the comics world. Newt had been returned to Earth but was kept in an institution to keep her experience secret and made to think she was crazy. That could have been a full TV series by itself. I loved the movie, but hated that it destroyed published continuity.

Not only was there better lore in the comics world, there was better lore in the first version of the script.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#363

Post by tuna74 »

jmb99 wrote: post #179
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

GoT still blows me away. You had about as close to an infinite budget as you can get in television, access to some of the best writers on the planet, as well as general guidance from Martin, and yet somehow you end up with season 8 (and 7, and to a lesser extent 6). It wouldn’t surprise me if Winds of Winter never gets published due in part to the TV series’ writing, which is to me the biggest loss.

Don't blame GoT for Martin's lack of output. The books are his responsibility.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#364

Post by sparsely »

vkou wrote: post #72
optimalsolver wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lord of the Rings doesn't dwell on the day-to-day details of how the various kingdoms functioned, and yet it's still a great story.

It didn't dwell on it, but Tolkien was incredibly meticulous about consistency, distances, travel times, how politics works in his universe, and logistics. And the films, for the most part, stuck very close to the source material. ... And then you get The Hobbit.

It loses it at some key points to aid visual clarity (and I guess cut the CGI costs), like Minas Tirith being on a featureless plain rather than surrounded by farmland.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#365

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

tuna74 wrote: post #353
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),…

"Lesson learned: scripts for sequels of movies that have a strong fan-base should be written by people who really care about the franchise (and have good ideas)." As the originators of the Matrix franchise, the Wachowskis certainly fit that description.

[flagged]

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#366

Post by worldsayshi »

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.

To me Matrix 4 was sort of an admission by The Wachowskis that while they could create at least one 'perfect' cyberpunk movie, they couldn't really figure out what cyberpunk should lead to - what a good subversion of the genre should look like. It feels like they tried but kind of gave up half way there. Subverting a franchise that people already have such strong and established connection to is probably almost impossible.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#367

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

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.)

See here I am anti-authoritarian thinking that the government should hand out psychedelics to people making art.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#368

Post by ceejayoz »

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

Gollum? The Balrog?

Pre-CGI it looked like this: https://www.galaxus.de/im/Files/1/8/4/9/5/2/0/9/gollum_serki...

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#369

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

Good films are hard to make, that's why. The article sort of skips over this, but there aren't a lot of Spielbergs out there. Most big-budget movies are lame, and intentionally so. Hollywood is about making money, not good films.

Most of the highest-rated films of the last 20 years are action films. Not because they had good characters, writing and acting. But because they were exciting. Sometimes they accidentally have good, nuanced characters, good acting, good cinematography, but those are happy accidents. The main thing you need for a successful film is a good car chase, guns blazing, people hanging off a ledge, monsters constantly giving chase (and yet somehow never killing the main characters as easily as the NPCs), an attractive woman in distress, a handsome male hero saving the day, maybe an orphan thrown in the mix. Get those hormones flowing and people will feel good afterward and give the movie a high rating.

Note that this is a completely different thing than "critics' favorite list of movies". Studios couldn't give a shit what critics think, they care how much revenue they made. If they want to win awards they'll churn out something emotional about a person with a handicap, a period drama or a war film.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#370

Post by WalterBright »

542354234235 wrote: post #289
WalterBright wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why haven't we seen more totally faithful adaptations of well-written, detailed speculative fiction? Because people always think they can "fix" it to make it better.

No, it is because you can’t tell the same story in a different medium and expect it to work. Things that work in a book, like a character’s internal monolog, don’t work in a movie. Just taking that “facts” from a book and filming them almost never works. You have to look at the theme, tone, and the overall message being portrayed in the book and make a movie that captures those. The book has two tyrannosauruses, but…

> have very little understanding about what makes good movies

I've seen many thousands of movies, and that does give me knowledge about what makes a movie better.

For example, music makes a huuuuge difference, even if one may not even be aware of the music. For example, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings would be diminished considerably without their very good soundtracks. You can see this with the Hobbit movie - a lousy soundtrack, which severely damaged the movie. 2001 was greatly enhanced with the soundtrack. I read that Kubrick spent hundreds of hours listening to records searching for the perfect music. It paid off handsomely. What would "Blade Runner" be without the Vangelis soundtrack?

Post reply on HN