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

221–230 of 485 posts

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#221

Post by euroderf »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #201
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'll just pop in here to mention another fantastic and curiously similar film that came out around the same time, but was completely overshadowed by The Matrix. Dark City. If you liked The Matrix, this is one you might really enjoy, and while I say it's similar, I only mean in a very essential way. The plot is its own very unique story aside from that.

I'll second this recommendation. And without spoilers. It's a very good film.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#223

Post by eszed »

echelon wrote: post #75
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…

> unspoken "show-don't-tell" internal logic This is another axis separate or orthogonal to worldbuilding. Recent Marvel and Disney films, the Jurassic Park and Star Wars sequels, and most Godzilla / Kong slop doesn't build believable worlds. The writers don't spend any time writing the universe that the story takes place in. Lord of the Rings (the theatrical film trilogy), Game of Thrones (save for the last seasons),…

> [Dune] makes the mistake of not communicating anything to you about it. If you haven't read the books, much of the story is easily lost.

Counterpoint: my wife. I took her into Dune knowing nothing at all about it, besides how excited I was to see it, and she got everything. Like, seriously, everything. She's a super intelligent and intuitive person, and Villeneuve is one of her favorite directors so she's maybe the ideal audience member.

It might be fair say that the exposition is too subtle for a general audience to pick up, but it's certainly there. I refuse to hold that against the film, though. The usual state of Hollywood movies is to browbeat an audience with heavy-handed explanations, so I love it that Villeneuve makes you pay attention and think and remember and put together clues to understand everything that's going on. It's sophisticated filmmaking, dammit, and there's not enough of that around - especially in big-budget / sci-fi / franchise films.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#224

Post by pferde »

Ralfp wrote: post #218
wishfish wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the sequels were worthwhile just for one solitary scene. In the third movie, Trinity is piloting the ship and has to gain higher than usual altitude for some reason that I've now forgotten. This takes her above the black clouds permanently enveloping the Earth. Sunlight pours into the cockpit. For the first and only time in her life, she sees the real sun with her own physical eyes. She's overwhelmed. It's jus…

They are flying over the cloudbs because thats only way to avoid defenses of the Machine City. Matrix 4 introduced „good machines” but didn’t do much of anything with them :|

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.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#225

Post by HexPhantom »

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…

That's a great way to frame it, like each franchise had two solid "local maxima" and then just aimlessly wandered the creative desert afterward

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#226

Post by HexPhantom »

ivankelly wrote: post #220

> At the time of Jurassic Park’s release, the meteor as the cause for the dino-extinction was still a nascent theory and more than a decade out from being cemented as fact. This assumed me. Like many people who were interested in dinosaurs, the interest didn't last much past by early teens, so the "nobody knows for sure, maybe meteor" reason for their disappearance was the accepted explanation until something trigger…

You grow up thinking the mystery is still unsolved, only to check back years later and find out, "Oh yeah, giant rock from space is basically settled science now."

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#227

Post by aleph_minus_one »

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 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), and I bet if I had been looking much more deeply into these fan-fiction sequels, I could have found one that was as exceptional as the original Matrix.

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).

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#228

Post by aleph_minus_one »

nurettin wrote: post #188
Klonoar wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Animatrix is the only other bit of Matrix-related media I consider to be real.

My reaction when I watched it 20+ years ago: Hallucinogens were definitely involved.

> Hallucinogens were definitely involved.

If these result in better movies: why not?

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#229

Post by Cthulhu_ »

ggambetta wrote: post #203
wishfish wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the sequels were worthwhile just for one solitary scene. In the third movie, Trinity is piloting the ship and has to gain higher than usual altitude for some reason that I've now forgotten. This takes her above the black clouds permanently enveloping the Earth. Sunlight pours into the cockpit. For the first and only time in her life, she sees the real sun with her own physical eyes. She's overwhelmed. It's jus…

Likewise, the highway chase in the first non-existent sequel is pretty epic.

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 having a lot of "this is obviously cgi lmao what is this".

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#230

Post by Cthulhu_ »

pferde wrote: post #224
Ralfp wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are flying over the cloudbs because thats only way to avoid defenses of the Machine City. Matrix 4 introduced „good machines” but didn’t do much of anything with them :|

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.

Post reply on HN