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

251–260 of 485 posts

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#251

Post by Zardoz84 »

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)

My head cannon when I watched it for first time, it's the Neo bend reality abilities in the Matrix are really the matrix simulation, reflecting some kind of SPI habitability that he have in the real world but never know how to use. However, your idea sounds better, but would make it like another "Level 13" or "Existence"

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#252

Post by tuco86 »

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…

The original Matrix was an exceptional Movie looking into the brain in a jar concept and even becoming an even more popular analogy to explain the concept. All the supernatural stuff happens within the matrix and still stays in the natural world.

I'm happy they never made a sequel where supernatural stuff happens in the real world. They still would have been worthwhile Hollywood action movies, but nothing like the original which was one of my favorite movies growing up.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#253

Post by chippiewill »

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.

> WB owned the franchise and were going to make a sequel with or without them

This is 100% what was going to happen. The film basically tells you this in its meta-commentary.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#254

Post by mosquitobiten »

nilamo wrote: post #177
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 enjoy watching the Oracle's multi-century-long plan of manipulating both humans and the architect. Her mastery of psychology is absolutely beautiful.

well thats her expertise, it is why she exists. one single super smart AI is not good enough, you need other dumber AIs that are specialists. also my understanding is that all the AIs in the matrix perform functions and exist outside of it too. It is very interesting how the wachouskis were right, we already started using a similar strategy with our LLMs to help us with alignment.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#255

Post by krapp »

GMoromisato wrote: post #99
euparkeria wrote: post #65

I still cannot understand how good movies with dinosaurs are so rare. There are dozens of great movies with zombies, and the concept is very simple: people running from the infected. Why running from dinosaurs is different?

I think this is a great question! There are also many good vampire movies. All I can think of is that zombies and vampires are so deeply engrained in our stories that they are merely part of the setting and the real movie is about something else. It's like saying why are there so many movies set in New York? If this theory is correct, then it also explains why we can have lots of alien invasion movies but only a coup…

In preindustrial societies, "vampires and zombies" (which didn't really exist per se before being codified in modern media) represented fear of disease, death and the unknown and occult aspects of the natural world, and embodied pervasive fears of hidden Satanic influence on the community, of both cultural and physical corruption.

After Bram Stoker essentially codified the vampire for the Western world, they also came to represent the raw power of sexual desire and the corruption of violating Christian taboos in Victorian age England. Zombies didn't really exist as a thing in pop culture AFAIK until Night of the Living Dead, although folklore has plenty of examples of revenant spirits and demons that attack the living, hard taxonomies like "vampire" and "zombie" didn't really exist, just as the distinction between "ghosts", "elves" and "trolls" were blurrier before Tolkien.

Nowadays, there aren't many primal or deep cultural fears in Western society that these monsters can effectively inhabit, so they mostly exist as pop icons and symbols of themselves. Although I have seen the "zombie as the dehumanization of capitalism" and "zombie as manifestation of popular violence." Mostly zombies are zombies because zombies are cool, and vampires are vampires because vampires are cool, and that's the end of it.

Vampires, zombies and aliens are flexible because they don't really exist (aliens probably exist, but they don't exist here) They have a vast amount of folklore to draw from, and can be dropped within almost any setting and motif without much suspension of disbelief.

This isn't the case for dinosaurs. They were real, they were animals, they were big and there just isn't as much to work with thematically, and you have to work harder to justify the presence of dinosaurs in any setting where human beings also exist. You can't really tap into fear, sex, body horror, political intrigue, cool fight scenes, etc. with dinosaurs the way you can with the rest. You can't update dinosaurs for the modern world the way you can vampires, zombies and aliens.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#256

Post by ragazzina »

card_zero wrote: post #113
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #108

> "Don’t move. It can’t see us if we don’t move." This is from the book. They filled in missing DNA with frog DNA and the park's dinosaurs were insensitive to movement as a result. This is only hinted at in the movie during the animated Mr DNA sequence.

I read in a neuroscience book that human eyes work that way too, but vibrate slightly the whole time to enable us to see stuff that isn't moving.

This is a plot point in the excellent Peter Watt's novel Blindsight.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#257

Post by Levitz »

nurettin wrote: post #246
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I didn't say "not". But I do have addiction in family and I wouldn't wish this on other families.

Hallucinogens have a reputation for many things, addiction is not one of them.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#258

Post by Yizahi »

bartread wrote: post #106
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…

> 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.

Sequels were made even worse because of the original movie ending, showing that "real" world was also a simulation. Watching 2 and 3 felt kinda pointless after that.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#259

Post by thaumasiotes »

iainmerrick wrote: post #248
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 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.

Re: Why are there no good dinosaur films?

#260

Post by christophilus »

LeftHandPath wrote: post #27

The other thing that differentiates Spielberg's original work from all that's followed is the way it explored the details. From the sourcing of the amber, to the need to have paleontologists, botanists, and lawyers check Hammond's work, to the inclement weather, to the social interactions and workplace frustrations of the staff -- it all felt like much more of a living, breathing park than any of the renderings since…

He got so many details right, and yet still created that UNIX meme. That’s amazing.
Post reply on HN