Why Jurassic Park Looks Better Than Its Sequels

youtube.com

40 points·henning··5 comments

I still hold that the scene where Grant and Sattler first see the Brachiosaur is one of the best acted (and I suppose directed) scenes ever. That subtle feeling of vindication when his theory is proven right against all the critics[1]... "they do move in herds"... and then the sheer wonder and child-like awe of Grant/Sam Neill when he just says, agape "...how'd you do this?" just spellbinds me each time.

I just couldn't imagine having that kind of emotional reponse as a viewer with today's CGI design by committee shitfest that seems to be the norm.

Also, don't forget that the first movie was based (fairly) closely on a riveting book written by a fantastic story teller - that sure helps with telling a good story.

[1] who you don't even know about - its just the way he says it makes you understand that he's been advancing that theory for a long time and facing a lot of criticism for it.

Probably the title should be “Why Steven Spielberg is a good director”.

Can someone tell me why without having to watch a video?

Different aspect ratio, more blocking and framing of shots, strategic use of objects to control sense of scale, shooting the dinosaur-human encounters through glass (or other “containers” basically) to elicit a claustrophobia response (I maybe be leaving one or two out). The sequels may have one of the above, but not all or they botch the implementation.

But it should also be noted that those techniques limit your storytelling ability. Those types of shots only work if you actually want a cloistered, dark/rainy, closeup environment looking through windows or whatever.

Sometimes filmmakers want that big, long, beautiful, clear, well framed, brightly lit shot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com