Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisLTD | Hacker News Reader

I actually find it very difficult to watch Jurassic Park these days. The CG has not aged well at all. With Ghostbusters, the effects look terrible in a few scenes (the claymation dogs spring to mind), but it's not so jarring in the context of a comedy.

View on HN

> The CG has not aged well at all.

Really? I look to Jurassic Park as what CG should look like in movies. The opening reveal of the brontosauruses is still amazing, especially when you think of when the movie was made. What hasn't aged well?

Other movies from the mid-to-late 90s, on the other hand, have not aged well. Many of these used CG for the sake of having CG and did not take any care of ensuring it integrated into the rest of the shot.

No one is disputing how awesome it looked when it first came out, but the same thing could be said for quake 1. As our eyes adjust to the ever increasing details in movies and games, what used to look awesome begins to look awful. Here is the scene with the Brontosaurs While it seemed photo-realistic when it first came out, it now looks choppy, grainy, and artificial. Most low-budget T.V. shows have better CG now. But that's just the way computer animation works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg

I appreciate the link, but I definitely disagree with you.

I have to agree with you. If any film needs a special edition, it's this, not Star Wars or E.T.

Honestly? I may even be up for a 3d conversion... If anyone's able to do them well?

I actually feel the exact opposite of this. I recently rewatched both and thought Jurassic Park held up amazingly well (at least the first one) and Ghostbusters looked far worse (as it should being that it's nearly 10 years older than Jurassic Park).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com