Personally, I find the above paragraph to be rather silly, but people pay
to see that stuff.
Actually, I think the marketing appeal of such movies is leveraging
our childhood cartoon experiences. And it's an interesting cycle:
Hollywood keeps thinking it can make these things over and over again,
merchandise them do death, and that people will eat it up like idiots.
What actually happens, is that every other movie fails because the
public gets sick of being conned. From a marketing and merchandising
standpoint: Batman I = success, Dick Tracy == flop, Batman II == ok,
Flintstones == ???, I can't remember.
How about Jurassic Park? Now there's an idea.
Jurassic Park was a brilliant special effects movie. What can VR
learn from this?
But as a drama, it was incredibly simplistic, both in its plot and in
its acting. As a vehicle for exploring the VR concept of "plot," I
think it's about as shaky a foundation as we could pick.
It seems that in looking at Hamlet, Star Wars, Van Gogh, Dali, Escher,
and Jurassic Park, we are finding that most works of art lend
themselves readily to only one major axis of exploration. Assuming of
course, that we are somehow trying to be "true" to the qualities of
the work, and that we're not out to create simply whatever we feel
like. If we take a full creative license, then of course all bets are
off. We can have Van Gogh riding a Triceratops. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon