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

LOST WORLD cynicism

Hey everybody...

When criticizing LOST WORLD keep in mind that filmmaking is an art form and
one that most of you know very little about. You can pick apart any similar
action/adventure picture. There are lots of implausibilities in every one
of them. For example, DIE HARD, which is a classic in the genre, and a
great movie, has probably more implausibilities than LOST WORLD (plot wise,
not the overall concept). The difference is that they are subtle and can be
debated. And they're just above that borderline of suspension of disbelief.
If you over-analyze them, they become questionable under close scrutiny and
the illusion fades. But that's the trick and the art of filmmaking. This
type of picture is intentionally over-the-top, a surrealistic exagerration
of reality. THAT'S WHAT THIS MOVIE IS! Maybe it's your opinion that it
should have been more like a Bergman film or Mutual of Omaha's Wild
Kingdom, but if that approach was taken I'm sure the original Jurassic Park
wouldn't have generated enough excitement to justify (money-wise) a 75
million dollar sequel. Although I would love to see a movie in which there
were no human actors and the camera just moved lazily through a dinosaur
populated savanna or jungle. Maybe someday someone will make that kind of
movie, but what they have made is a damn good movie for the type of movie
that it is intended to be.

Here's some examples of what I'm talking about in over-critisizing this
type of film in an exchange between Ron Orenstein (playing the part of
uptight cynic) and jeff Poling in the (wait a minute... what about this
possiblity) open-minded role.

>>7.  Our photographer character has been in more than one war zone.  He's
>>not stupid.  He knows his life is at stake.  So what does he do to his
>>chief guard's main line of defense?  Takes the bullets out of his gun!

>   Was he telling the truth about being a photographer?  I'm not so sure.
>The guy was an Earth Firster, and Hammond's secret weapon.  I've seen quotes
>from the founders of Earth First; what I read suggests the *founders* are
>fanatics, whackos or just plain idiots (I do know that one of the reasons
>why one of the founders left Greenpeace to start Earth First was because he
>didn't think Greenpeace was bold and "forceful" enough).  Whether this is
>true of the rest of the organization I don't know, but based on the quotes
?of the founders I found his taking of the bullets to be absolutely believable.

>>9.  INGEN has huge helicopters capable of flying in heavy vehicles.  They
>>have a doped-up T. rex that will only stay under for so long.  So why do
>>they send the critter home by ship???

>   Because they have a doped-up T. rex that will only stay under for so
>long?  Anybody know how long a helicopter trip would have been?  If it's a
>long trip, the thing would wake up and they'd have a hell of a situation on
>their hands if it wasn't fully secured, the stress surely would not have
>been good for it, and in any case they wouldn't have been able to monitor it
>if it had difficult with the tranquilizers, which apparently it did.

>>10.  What on earth was the naval destroyer escort supposed to do?  Possibly
>>the film's most ludicrous image....

>   Not at all.  I haven't forgotten the nonsense with the three whales stuck
>in the ice several years ago.  Given that, I'd say the escort was a way for
>the nations of the earth to show solidarity with their brethern over
>preserving the wonders of nature ... and, I suppose, to make it clear that
>anybody ELSE who tried to take the dinosaurs off the island would get hit
>with the business end of a destroyer.

And Betty C does a great job in answering Larry's questionable criticism:

>> What about the errors in logic in the movie (don't read further if
>> you don't want to know), the biggest one being how the T-Rex on the
>> boat got out, ate the crew, and then locked itself back in the hold?
>> How did it eat the guy in the cabin?  How was a ship with a dead
>> crew guided back right to port?  Hmmm . . . pretty sloppy.  Loved the
>> movie otherwise though.

>I saw it this way:
>there was a dramatic pause on the dead arm holding the switch BEFORE we
>figured out the T rex was bouncing the doors trying to get out.  The
>director was trying to tell us something.
>I figured there's a bit not shown where, after the T gets out, starts
>killing everybody (why are there dismembered body parts in the ships'
>cabin but no T rex-sized holes in the cabin?) he badly mangles the
>button operator who, left for dead (WHY was he not eaten?) and manfully,
>as the T rex chases somebody back into the hold, crawls to the button
>and pushes it to seal in the T rex then expires gorely.

Great insight Betty!!

Alot got cut from this movie and it was still a 2 hour and 15 minute movie.
No doubt they could flesh out some scenes to explain how the situations
came about but we'd end up with a four hour movie.

People we really don't need to prove our intellectual superiority by
reaching for every miniscule flaw. Philosophically speaking, cyncism is a
sickness of the human spirit and I hate to see that view of the world
prevail. The positive far outweighs the negative with THE LOST WORLD. Let's
NOT let the NEGATIVE become the emphasis, let us rejoice in the POSITIVE...