Why are there no good dinosaur films? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#161

Post by bobbles » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:24 AM UTC

GMoromisato wrote: post #117

bartread wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And, of course, they never even bothered to make sequels to The Matrix. Like you, this is the reality I choose to inhabit. The Matrix was an incredible film, still stands as an incredible film, but that sequel tease at the end? Should have been a tease, or perhaps a prompt, for the viewer’s imagination only. There are no sequels to The Matrix.

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 stand by the fact that a skilled editor cutting like hell across movies 2 and 3 to a singular sequel could save that story

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#162

Post by LexGray » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:25 AM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #131

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…

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.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#163

Post by pomian » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:26 AM UTC

jtrn wrote: post #50

I’m not sure if “kicking in open doors” is an idiom in English, but this is a good example of that concepts. This is basically a rehearse of old tropes. Hollywood has lost its story telling edge. Jurassic park is inaccurate but successfully combines historical context with fictional storytelling, creating a sense of awe and reverence for dinosaurs. Modern dinosaur films often suffer from heavy reliance on CGI and lac…

All the good story tellers went to work at computer game companies.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#164

Post by xoxxala » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:27 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #145

vkou wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Hobbit was more of a Disney theme park ride than a story.

There is an unofficial version of The Hobbit called the “m4 book edit” floating around that removes most of the extraneous junk. It’s vastly better than the theatrical versions.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#165

Post by crooked-v » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:30 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #101

cco wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a bit of backstory in the new one about how dinosaur zoos are closing, and that no one wants to see dinosaurs anymore. That premise struck me as strange, as people have been going to zoos for a lot longer than these fictional dinosaur zoos... I find it plausible that the immense cost to run Jurassic Park results in per-ticket cost that just wasn't sustainable long term. Just the flights to get there would b…

The apparent "immense cost to run Jurassic Park" is largely a side effect of Hollywood's need to stack the deck to an implausible degree in favor of the dinosaurs so they can escape and create havoc and eat people. In reality, if we assume the dinosaurs can breed true, they wouldn't be particularly more expensive than any normal zoo exhibit. We contain lions, tigers, wolves, hyenas, bears, venomous snakes, alligators…

It's actually an explicit plot point in the original book that the containment is insufficient because Hammond thinks he's a big brain brilliant genius who can do all this stuff from scratch better than any boring old normal zookeepers. The movie lost that in translation as part of the attempt to make him a kindly grandfather making bad decisions instead of a two-faced showman who's completely full of himself.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#166

Post by xoxxala » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:39 AM UTC

deadbabe wrote: post #69

OJFord wrote: post #40

Because there's only one story to tell, for adults, and it's the Jurassic Park (et al.) story. You can't tell a period story for adults, with dinosaurs birthed normally and no modern science, because then it's not a 'talkie', and we're about a century past it being possible to have the budget for a state of the art dinosaur-prop film with no dialogue.

How about a World War 2 flick where Nazis breed dinosaurs to fight in the war?

The sequel to Iron Sky has a tyrannosaurus-riding Hitler. Trailer has a clip from that scene.

https://youtu.be/NuI-KU70pvM

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#167

Post by jzebedee » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:44 AM UTC

bobbles wrote: post #161

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 stand by the fact that a skilled editor cutting like hell across movies 2 and 3 to a singular sequel could save that story

A similar feat to The Phantom Edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#168

Post by int0x29 » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:46 AM UTC

I remain convinced that Jurassic World is just a Mercedes ad.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#169

Post by ggm » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:56 AM UTC

davidw wrote: post #153

ggm wrote: post #141

Does not appear to mention "the land that time forgot" (1974) with the inimitable Doug McClure, not his eponymous cartoon alternate Troy, who we all remember from his fine educational films such as "Dinosaurs: not a good addition to a shaving Foam cannister" The screenplay was Michael Moorcock, the original is Edgar Rice Burroughs 1918. I watched this at least 3 times in a tiny one-man cinema (Jaggers) in pembroke on…

Along the lines of some of those, Caveman with Ringo Starr is funny. At least it was when I watched it as a kid; maybe it'd be disappointing now.

It's probably passed through disappointing back to funny again.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#170

Post by Rodeoclash » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:59 AM UTC

echelon wrote: post #85

Rodeoclash wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion that's what makes Villeneuve's so great. For example, I think almost any other director would have had an info dump about what Mentat's are in the Dune universe, motivations and they they are important. Instead in Villeneuve's version, you simply see the results. For those watching the film without the context you simply chalk it up to a weird and wonderful way that the universe works. For those that ha…

> This embodies show don't tell and it works amazingly. That's not "show, don't tell". That's "you need the companion book". A masterclass in "Show, don't tell" is the intro to Pixar's "Up". If you haven't seen it, you absolutely must. "Show, don't tell" isn't stuff that is lost on the uninitiated. It's stuff that is masterfully communicated without the need for corny expository dialogue. Villeneuve's mentats are lik…

> It's stuff that is masterfully communicated without the need for corny expository dialogue

This is the scene I'm thinking of: https://youtu.be/70FLqFWJMNk?si=0faCWRS9aNpVTil4&t=68

You don't need to know that the character is a mentat. The story works perfectly well without that knowledge. But if you do then it adds a second layer to the scene. Much like watching something like the early Simpson's is even better if you have a grounding in the novels and movies that they're parodying but isn't required to get the show.

> A masterclass in "Show, don't tell" is the intro to Pixar's "Up". If you haven't seen it, you absolutely must.

I have seen it quite some time ago, please point out some clips where you feel the show don't tell is executed well.