Mike Hill discussed the fundamental differences between Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, Via How Stuff Works
Last year’s “Jurassic World” was a blockbuster in terms of ticket sales and revenue generated, but a common criticism of the film was that it had all the bells and whistles you’d expect, but none of the heart you’d hope for. Realistic-looking animated dinosaurs are one thing, but a real, relatable, human story? That’s something else entirely.
The latest in the line of sequels to Steven Spielberg’s 1993 film “Jurassic Park,” the CGI-heavy “Jurassic World” left an oddly empty feeling in many viewers, including designer Mike Hill. That troubled him, and he decided to analyze why two films that are on the surface so similar could evoke such a different reaction. His conclusions about what made the original such a success cast the Spielberg film in a new light, and one that’ll change the way you see the movie.
Delivered at a Trojan Horse Was a Unicorn culture-and-design meeting last month in Berlin, Hill’s half-hour talk walks the audience through the successes of Spielberg’s 1993 dino romp. Set aside an occasionally chatty crowd and the infrequent profanity popping up in Hill’s presentation — this isn’t a highbrow TED Talk, after all — and you’ll find an insightful look into cinematography, narrative structure, and what the whole purpose of this very human act of telling stories really means. For instance: Hill explains the subtextual reason why Laura Dern’s character plunges her arm into dino droppings, and it all makes sense in a totally new way — it all has to do with the search for family structure and reinforcing maternal and paternal roles.