This is a great breakdown for those learning about staging for film and animation by Films and Stuff. His intro says, “Here I examine the stunning visuals in Jurassic Park that bring these extinct Dinosaurs to life, and why the visuals in it’s sequels just don’t compare.”
In Steven Spielberg's massive blockbuster, paleontologists Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and mathematician Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) are among a select group chosen to tour an island theme park populated by dinosaurs created from prehistoric DNA. While the park's mastermind, billionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), assures everyone that the facility is safe, they find out otherwise when various ferocious predators break free and go on the hunt.
I just come across a video by Jonathan Burdett, a YouTuber that predominately creates video essays on blockbuster films for his channel, Films&Stuff. In the video I watched, he talked about the original Jurassic Park movie and how it looks better than the sequels.
As you’d expect, it comes down to various factors. However, I found it curious as to why the sequels weren’t at the same level. I would think that the sequels would build on the skills learned from the first movie, but clearly there was something missing.
The $60 million production (a bargain at the cost) follows the general idea if not the letter of Michael Crichton’s 1990 bestseller, which was no doubt partly inspired by Conan Doyle’s “The Lost World”.
Very cleverly, the film positions itself both as a dark look at a theme park gone awry, and as a theme park itself. Merchandising, Universal tour attractions and sequels will extend the profits enormously.
Basis of this hi-tech, scientifically based, up-to-date version lies in the notion that living, breathing and eating full-sized dinosaurs can be biologically engineered using fossilized dino DNA.
