
Why Jurassic Park Looks Better Than Its Sequels - henning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKALxKbjOaE
======
hotwire
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.

------
diegof79
Probably the title should be “Why Steven Spielberg is a good director”.

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

~~~
remarkEon
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.

~~~
jjeaff
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.

