^^ See, when I think of a faithful adaptation of the book, a modern-day, sorta-sequel starring a 15-y.o. kid isn't really what I had in mind.
The "proper" way to use special effects is to use the best technique for each shot, ideally to mix multiple techniques so that the weaknesses of each are compensated for by the strengths of the others, rather than foolishly assuming that the more recent technique is automatically superior to older, proven methods just because it's newer and flashier.
Whoah, there, cowboy, no need to throw words like "foolish" around here. I've got nothing against masterfully made (Stan Winston) animatronics, but there's a reason that, with the exception of the sick trike, those practical effects were pretty much only used for shots taking place at night, indoors or both. Dynamic, believable daytime exterior shots of dinosaurs requires CG. And when I said "proper CG", I meant good
CG as much as I meant "inherently proper" CG.
Special effects only exist to support the story and performances. If those are good, if you find the characters and situations compelling, then you'll buy into what's happening regardless of the quality of the effects.
Thanks for the Film 101 lesson. But see what you did there? You heavily implied a false choice between professional, state-of-the-art effects and good storytelling. My ideal Lost World
adaptation would feature both. Unless you'd like to argue that that's not possible?
But look. According to the above review (the only
one on IMDB), the '92 movie features "a spunky young photographer girl [who] managed to force her way onto the expedition by confronting period sexism in the novel" and "a stowaway kid who wanted adventure, and later proved handy." Oh, and "dismay at keeping animals in zoos, and a wholly un-British regret at having intruded on another culture’s world." If you like this movie, I'm happy for you. Maybe it's good in spite of the dino hand puppets. But it sure as heck isn't a faithful adaptation of Doyle's novel.