[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: The Lost Child...

Jeffrey Martz <martz@holly.ColoState.EDU> wrote:

>      No, why?  Why does turning a "Bakkerian Superbeast" into a
>remarkable animal have to involve killing joy?  Again, I think it is sad
>to assume that reality is so incredibally dull that we have to lie to make
>it interesting.  Dinosaurs weren't boring.  Why do we have to embellish to
>make them more exiting?

I completely disagree with you. I am not arguing science here. I'm arguing
for the medium of *filmmaking* and *art* which is *not* your forte. You do
not understand the medium. I cannot give you a complete lesson in the arts
in a short sound byte but a good example would be a scene from a movie that
is completely removed from science. In The Natural, a fictional story about
a baseball hero, we all know the reality of baseball, yet the hero is shown
to do things that are super human (that no one can do) such as actually
knock the cover off the ball. In the climactic scene, a sound of a train's
whistle can be heard in the background even though that sound is out of
place in a noisy baseball stadium. This was put there by the filmmaker to
lead the audiences mind subconsciously back to an earlier relavent scene by
some railroad tracks. The point is that a movie *IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A
DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF REALITY!!* It employs exagerration on purpose. It's
called surrealism. Like a painter who exagerrates muscle tone or the curves
of a female (Frazetta).

>       I think the beef that Brian and I have with Jurassic Park is that
>Jurassic Park is SUPPOSED to be a fairly realistic movie, and the
>dialougue and plot and such (correctly, in the case of the book) strongly
>imply that the movie has a sound scientific basis.

Wrong again. Jurassic Park is *NOT* and never was supposed to be a
realistic movie. What Spielberg and Chrichton have said is that it is based
on a kernal of scientific possiblity. That is what makes the plot
plausable. The fact that they did such a good job with surrealism has
tricked you into believing it is more than it is.

My advice to all you uptight people out there who share Jeff's and Brian's
opinion is to just sit back, enjoy the best dino movies ever put on the
silver screen, and leave the filmmaking to the filmmakers. They don't come
to your digs and complain that your excavations lack an artristic flair
that they should have, so don't complain if they use surrealism in their
movies. It's a tool of the trade just like your cladograms are a tool of
your trade. They made a great effort to create fairly realistic dinosaurs
and not create Godzilla. Really good filmmakers walk the fine line between
reality and illusion and JP and LW are the best of their kind.

As for the subject of the general public getting some wrong assumptions
about dinosaurs from these movies. So what?!! That's where science comes in
to do its part. And people in general are going to have plenty of
misconceptions throughout life of many things just as many of you lack
knowledge of the art of filmmaking. That's just life. When you get
specialized you're going to lack knowledge in other areas.

Modern physics tells us that time travel is *not* forbidden by its laws so
when it becomes possible to trip back to the mesozoic, I'll zip back there
and film some documentary footage for everybody, ok?!!!