• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

lttp : Jurassic Park (Movie vs Book)

I think the book is better (as always), but things that bothered me in the movie (I read the book first) is the change in Hammond character to a Walt Disney character that everyone loves, while in the book he was always a greedy capitalist. Also, the way they presented how they created the dinousaurs using a park video, showing all the tricks (including the use of anfibial dna). I know that was to keep the pace of the movie since the book had a lot of space to explain that to the reader, but it does not look like a real theme park, that will never tell its secrets (keep it magical). It is like the actors in Disney World saying to all children they are just actors.
 

Tobor

Member
Crichton's Dr. Grant was based on Jack Horner.

JackHorner2.jpg

Yep. Based on. But read that book and tell me you don't see Harrison Ford as perfect in the role. He was the right age and everything.

Besides, like I said, it's common knowledge Spielberg offered the part to Ford first and Ford turned it down.
 

Timeaisis

Member
I really enjoy both, but I think the movie is better overall. It's so well paced and captivating from the very start. The book gets off topic occasionally and has some minor pacing issues. JP the movie is just a tighter experience, in line with being a dinosaur thriller, while weaving in the interesting characterizations from the book seamlessly into the film. I wish Crichton and Spielberg had worked together more.
 

Cafeman

Member
Book JP had the great river sequence, which wasn't in the film. The SEGA Genesis JP did include a river level, I loved that!

A similar sequence with two Rees was in the Xbox King Kong game, and JP3 film had its own far less rewarding river scenes, with the Spino however.
 

Ridley327

Member
I'm old enough that I read the book before the movie was released.

My biggest takeaway is that I pictured Alan Grant as Harrison Ford while reading the book. No offense to Sam Neil, but he always felt like a huge downgrade to me as the part just screamed Harrison Ford to me.

EDIT: yes, I know Ford turned the part down. But that's my point really, he was Spielbergs first choice as well.


Also, it bothered me that the compy scene and the closing shot of the pteranodon flying over the ocean was missing from the movie.

I dunno, I actually liked the fact that they didn't go for such an obvious pick for Grant. I feel like the movie is a lot better off not having a big star in it, since the only actor that really qualified at that time was Jeff Goldblum (hard to believe it now, but we were one year away from Pulp Fiction turning Sam Jackson into Sam Jackson). I seem to recall that Ford said he thought it was the right choice to turn it down after he saw the film, so that makes at least one other person that must have thought the same.
 
The audiobook is like $14 (10 for members) on Audible. Just grabbed it.
You just made me remember I've been wanting a JP audiobook for years but it was never available (on disc) whenever I've searched. Been years since I've thought of it though.

So if I buy this from this site, how's it work? Do I get a download or stream only from the site/app?

Thanks in advance.
 

Calabi

Member
I really enjoy both, but I think the movie is better overall. It's so well paced and captivating from the very start. The book gets off topic occasionally and has some minor pacing issues. JP the movie is just a tighter experience, in line with being a dinosaur thriller, while weaving in the interesting characterizations from the book seamlessly into the film. I wish Crichton and Spielberg had worked together more.

Thats what I like that about the book, it goes into more detail about things. I cant remember it exactly I havent read it in years I should read it again.
 

JeffZero

Purple Drazi
Jurassic Park was the first book I ever read. I was 5, so my actual grasp of the material was no doubt very weak, but I've been told I really did read it cover-to-cover. Thanks for this thread, OP. It was a blast.
 

Randdalf

Member
It's not fantastical but I really enjoyed Airframe by Crichton. I love Jurassic Park too though, and The Lost World is very different from the film, it's definitely worth reading.

They posthumously published Dragon's Teeth recently, which is a weird mix between a historical novel and a fictional western. It's not the best of his books, but it's way better than Pirate Latitudes, and I think it would make a pretty good movie. Talking of movie adaptions, Micro would be terrifying.
 

Hazmat

Member
You just made me remember I've been wanting a JP audiobook for years but it was never available (on disc) whenever I've searched. Been years since I've thought of it though.

So if I buy this from this site, how's it work? Do I get a download or stream only from the site/app?

Thanks in advance.

Audible is THE place for audiobooks. Like, I don't know if anyone else sells them. Download it to as many devices as you want and keep it forever. It's yours. Joining gets you your first book free.
 
Audible is THE place for audiobooks. Like, I don't know if anyone else sells them. Download it to as many devices as you want and keep it forever. It's yours. Joining gets you your first book free.
Thank you so much for the info.

Now I need to make space on my phone.
 
Read the books ages ago and thought it was fantastic. I love the movie for sparking my interest and introducing me to the book. The movie is great, book is better. Both are awesome.
 
I remember reading the whole of the novel before the film came out on a 2 hour train ride. Never read anything that gripped me as much as the book did. I loved the little graphic bits in it too (when they are trying to work the computer).

Another couple of Crichton books worth reading are The Andromeda Strain (which was rather faithfully filmed) and Binary (chase/crime thriller).
 

RyanW

Member
I completely forgot there was originally a book. Might have to pick it up the next time I'm at a bookstore
 

Hazmat

Member
I've heard mixed things about The Lost World (book). Should I skip it and jump into sphere?

The Lost World book is solid (if not great), but like the movie it feels like an unnecessary sequel made for a nice payday. And Ian Malcolm is back alive!

Sphere is great, but the movie sucks. It's not like Congo-bad, but it sucks. A pretty great cast couldn't save it. But the book is fun!
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
You just made me remember I've been wanting a JP audiobook for years but it was never available (on disc) whenever I've searched. Been years since I've thought of it though.

So if I buy this from this site, how's it work? Do I get a download or stream only from the site/app?

Thanks in advance.

Can stream or use their free app for use on phone.

Audible is great. I'm on a credit every 2 months plan which is great as it takes me forever to listen to a book.
 
Book, mostly because I find a lot of the actual kills to be more creative, however the film was overall more entertaining, since they tried to explain away the typical Crichton science babel, in a much better way. Plus Goldblum killed it as Ian Malcolm.

I think the book is better (as always), but things that bothered me in the movie (I read the book first) is the change in Hammond character to a Walt Disney character that everyone loves, while in the book he was always a greedy capitalist. Also, the way they presented how they created the dinousaurs using a park video, showing all the tricks (including the use of anfibial dna). I know that was to keep the pace of the movie since the book had a lot of space to explain that to the reader, but it does not look like a real theme park, that will never tell its secrets (keep it magical). It is like the actors in Disney World saying to all children they are just actors.

It's Spielberg, of course Hammond was going to be nicer. Honestly while I appreciate that Hammond was essentially a villain, Attenborough was perfectly cast in the sweet old Grandpa role regardless.
 
I thought the book was terrible, it felt like Crichton was using Ian Malcom to comment on everything that he thought was wrong with the world while trying to be pseudo-intellectual, I was rolling my eyes everytime he talked. And I swear if I heard that little girl say "I'm hungry" once more, jesus, shut the fuck up.

The movie was just on another level entirely, I had never been a fan before rewatching it (after reading the book), but Spielberg is a master of direction, it felt like every shot was calculated for the next one with amazing precision, if fixed every pacing issues the book had, it made every character that bit more interesting while removing most of the terrible dialogue, it actually had charm and personality, I was laughing my ass off everytime Goldblum was on screen. The sense of wonder you get from the book is magnified ten folds by the visuals mixed with the amazing music, same thing when shit gets scary. It really surprised me and honestly only Spielberg could make a movie like that work on so many level.
 
I thought the book was terrible, it felt like Crichton was using Ian Malcom to comment on everything that he thought was wrong with the world while trying to be pseudo-intellectual, I was rolling my eyes everytime he talked. And I swear if I heard that little girl say "I'm hungry" once more, jesus, shut the fuck up.

The movie was just on another level entirely, I had never been a fan before rewatching it (after reading the book), but Spielberg is a master of direction, it felt like every shot was calculated for the next one with amazing precision, if fixed every pacing issues the book had, it made every character that bit more interesting while removing most of the terrible dialogue, it actually had charm and personality, I was laughing my ass off everytime Goldblum was on screen. The sense of wonder you get from the book is magnified ten folds by the visuals mixed with the amazing music, same thing when shit gets scary. It really surprised me and honestly only Spielberg could make a movie like that work on so many level.
I read it and saw the film as a middle schooler so I didn't come away from either with those kinds of thoughts. Curious how old you were when you read them and how long after release. It just doesn't come across as a natural reaction unless you were older and with a bit more bias towards one or the other.

Not saying you're wrong, obviously. I'm just curious.
 

Tobor

Member
I dunno, I actually liked the fact that they didn't go for such an obvious pick for Grant. I feel like the movie is a lot better off not having a big star in it, since the only actor that really qualified at that time was Jeff Goldblum (hard to believe it now, but we were one year away from Pulp Fiction turning Sam Jackson into Sam Jackson). I seem to recall that Ford said he thought it was the right choice to turn it down after he saw the film, so that makes at least one other person that must have thought the same.

I hear what you're saying. Sam Neill was...let's just say different than how I pictured the role. He was kind of clinical in the role and a bit too British, even though he didn't have an accent. I don't know. It's not a huge complaint or anything, but I think the performance could have been better.

Don't get me started on the awful kid actors though. Just awful. Maybe that's what soured me on Sam Neill. He was stuck with those lousy kids for half the movie.
 
I read it and saw the film as a middle schooler so I didn't come away from either with those kinds of thoughts. Curious how old you were when you read them and how long after release. It just doesn't come across as a natural reaction unless you were older and with a bit more bias towards one or the other.

Not saying you're wrong, obviously. I'm just curious.
Read it last month for the first time (I'm 25). I had probably seen the movie twice before, but never really liked it. I rewatched it the minute I was done with the book.
 
Lol I was being pedantic about the T-Rex scene but I agree.

Would love your thoughts or response to what I said about the end raptor nest scene. Maybe tomorrow. I need to sleep too.

I get what you're saying in the OP, and additionally pacing-wise it's kind of an odd beat, but I still love the scene because of how incredibly creepy the whole thing is. It's one of those moments that could have been an amazing film scene (and still can be, should they choose to bring it back! The movies keep coming back to unused elements in the books) because of the eerie tone and how tense it could be on screen.

Jurassic Park is a classic hubris story (and a bit of warning). Hammond dying is definitely moral because he was convinced he could play God as well as put profit above everything and got punished for it. Malcolm dying was ironic. He was the only one that foresaw the inevitable chaos yet still got consumed by it.

I really like the film but it neutered much of the underlying message and edge by turning it into a monster movie.

I don't really agree with the reading that Jurassic Park the movie is "monster movie", at least in the sense you mean here. I think the same messages carry across, just in a different way. While Hammond isn't punished with death, we do see him watch his dreams and visions fall apart in real time, and by the end, the man we see hesitantly boarding the helicopter seems quite broken.

I like film Hammond since he's a bit more interesting of a character (novel Hammond has a few counterparts, particularly among Crichton works), with his more earnest showmanship and boisterousness, and I think fate that falls upon the film version works better with that particularly incarnation than the novel version does.

It's certainly better than the ending we could have gotten, where instead of the T. Rex, Hammond comes in and saves the day by blowing away the final raptor (the first gets crushed by the scissor lift) with a shotgun. Thankfully that all got torn up when Spielberg decided the Rex needed to come back in a big hero moment and realized the CGI would let him do it.

I think a straight adaptation of the novel would have been an R-rated film.

It just has the little touches that make it a scifi horror rather than the adventure with elements of horror in the movie.

The 12 inch tall suicidal wooly mammoth.

The raptors are so smart that not having grownups to learn from have made them sociopaths who eat their own kids.

Great movie and great book though.

It isn't until the sequel that the novel absolutely shits on the film.

Was it a mammoth? I remember it being an elephant but it's been ages.

And yeah, I really love that part about the raptor intelligence creating a "dysfunctional" pack. I think that was more a part of Lost World though? Not sure, been a while.

While I prefer the version of the movie we got, I do think it would be interesting to see Cameron's decidedly R-rated version that likely would have been more novel-accurate (and which he described as Aliens with dinosaurs).
 
I'll always be kinda salty Westworld got the HBO treatment and not Jurassic Park, and I say that as someone who really liked Westworld.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
Look, Malcolm did die in the book. Crichton simply resurrected him without explanation for the next novel because they brought Goldblum back for The Lost World movie.

While very different, both the sequel book and movie are crap.

This. He was pressured to make the book. He didn't want it to lead with Grant again and felt Malcolm was what the Chaos element represented.

It's also the only sequel he did, one he didn't want to do. Hence why both the flick and book are shit.

I personally think Hammond is more interesting in the book. The flick version basically white washes the dude into Grandpa with good intentions, bad result. Book version makes him a lot more hubris, which worked out better for his character and conclusion. Rather than Grandpa Joe sitting around wanting his kids.

I prefer the changes to Malcolm, in the book, he was too much of a downer. Movie definitely gave him a lot more charm, while getting the point across. I also felt his chapters, while having their point. Did not need to be in there.

I did prefer the bonding between Gennaro and Muldoon. Movie did both of them dirty since they chapters were some of the best
 

nekkid

It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
I like the story of the book more, but the movie is a better movie than a 1:1 of the book would ever be. My favourite movie of al time.

I found it weird that Crichton decided to bring back Malcolm for The Lost World, as if that book was a continuation of the movie rather than the first book.
 

Odoul

Member
I get what you're saying in the OP, and additionally pacing-wise it's kind of an odd beat, but I still love the scene because of how incredibly creepy the whole thing is. It's one of those moments that could have been an amazing film scene (and still can be, should they choose to bring it back! The movies keep coming back to unused elements in the books) because of the eerie tone and how tense it could be on screen.



I don't really agree with the reading that Jurassic Park the movie is "monster movie", at least in the sense you mean here. I think the same messages carry across, just in a different way. While Hammond isn't punished with death, we do see him watch his dreams and visions fall apart in real time, and by the end, the man we see hesitantly boarding the helicopter seems quite broken.

I like film Hammond since he's a bit more interesting of a character (novel Hammond has a few counterparts, particularly among Crichton works), with his more earnest showmanship and boisterousness, and I think fate that falls upon the film version works better with that particularly incarnation than the novel version does.

It's certainly better than the ending we could have gotten, where instead of the T. Rex, Hammond comes in and saves the day by blowing away the final raptor (the first gets crushed by the scissor lift) with a shotgun. Thankfully that all got torn up when Spielberg decided the Rex needed to come back in a big hero moment and realized the CGI would let him do it.



Was it a mammoth? I remember it being an elephant but it's been ages.

And yeah, I really love that part about the raptor intelligence creating a "dysfunctional" pack. I think that was more a part of Lost World though? Not sure, been a while.

While I prefer the version of the movie we got, I do think it would be interesting to see Cameron's decidedly R-rated version that likely would have been more novel-accurate (and which he described as Aliens with dinosaurs).

It may have been an elephant. I read the thing at least twenty years ago.

And Cameron was actually going to do this?

I'm not gonna say I would rather have that, JP is one of my favorite movies ever.

But I do want the dimension hopping tech that let's us see both Spielberg adventure and Cameron horror versions.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
This. He was pressured to make the book. He didn't want it to lead with Grant again and felt Malcolm was what the Chaos element represented.

It's also the only sequel he did, one he didn't want to do. Hence why both the flick and book are shit.

I personally think Hammond is more interesting in the book. The flick version basically white washes the dude into Grandpa with good intentions, bad result. Book version makes him a lot more hubris, which worked out better for his character and conclusion. Rather than Grandpa Joe sitting around wanting his kids.

I prefer the changes to Malcolm, in the book, he was too much of a downer. Movie definitely gave him a lot more charm, while getting the point across. I also felt his chapters, while having their point. Did not need to be in there.

I did prefer the bonding between Gennaro and Muldoon. Movie did both of them dirty since they chapters were some of the best

Only redeeming part of Malcolm's chapters are they are going on while raptors are literally chewing through the bars in the skylight above them, spit raining down. Was a great image.
 

Vimes

Member
Watched the movie a few months ago, and TBH Hammond comes off as a giant asshole. It works shockingly well as a metaphor for a modern disruptive tech company, with him as the idiot CEO.

It's too bad that it's probably an accident rather than a conscious decision that he's so charismatic, and you don't figure out he's full of shit until the last act; but it works really well either way. It wasn't until my last watch that I realized how good the scene is where Sattler calls him out in the empty dining room.
 
I really liked Gennaro in the book.

The Lost World book spoilers
then it's just briefly mentioned that he randomly died of dysentery or something. I quite reading the book at that point which was really early in.
 
It may have been an elephant. I read the thing at least twenty years ago.

And Cameron was actually going to do this?

I'm not gonna say I would rather have that, JP is one of my favorite movies ever.

But I do want the dimension hopping tech that let's us see both Spielberg adventure and Cameron horror versions.

Cameron really, really wanted it, but Spielberg snagged the rights first, via Universal. Though Spielberg had his heart set on making it since before the book even came out - Crichton was on one of his sets (I don't recall which) and Spielberg asked him work he was currently writing. When he told him, he decided on the spot that he had to make the movie.

Ultimately though even Cameron was glad Spielberg got it, because he felt making a hard R dino movie that kids couldn't enjoy was a bad move after seeing the final movie.

But yeah, I'd definitely be interested in seeing what could have been. It's funny that you mention dimension hopping too. :p (I mention that very movie at the end of the OP)
 

NYR94

Member
I read the novel in middle school and couldn't put it down. It was the year after the movie came out, which I was obsessed with. One of the best parts of the novel is how detailed it is, especially with all the behind the scenes problems the park had. In the film Samuel L. Jackson mentions "item 151 on today's glitch list" but the movie doesn't go into detail about them other than a few like the vehicle lights staying on during the day or the triceratops getting sick. In the novel they mention that the Rexes drink from the lagoon and get sick sometimes and stay hidden during the day because they sunburn easily, the triceratops females kill each other in fights for dominance, the raptors chew off their radio collars and other species got skin rashes. The dactyls were territorial and basically dive-bombed workers in the aviary so they couldn't open that attraction. Plus stuff like they didn't even know the dilophosaurs were poisonous until they saw them biting rats and then waiting for them to die and didn't know how far they could actually spit their venom until they almost blinded a worker. Even Hammond's mini elephant had issues, getting infections and biting people and acting like an angry rodent. I just found stuff like that really interesting.
 

gfxtwin

Member
Haven't read the book TBH but I do feel like JP the film holds up amazingly well. The most dated aspect is the portrayal of dinosaurs, ironically enough. The herbivores still look amazing but the theropods should be feathered, blah blah, JP fans are probably tired of hearing it, I get it.

I know fans will groan when I say this, but if Spielberg gave JP the ET treatment and added CG to a special edition of the movie (in this case, feathers on the raptors, Gallimimus and some subtle feathering along the spine of the T-Rex) it would only enhance it (at least if you're into paleontology, I could see how casual audiences would be pissed though) and make it a perfect film for me.

Everything else - characters, pacing, production design, cinematography, sound design, script, etc -is tighter than Brann Dailor's snare drum though. I don't think I've ever seen a blockbuster movie where the setpieces felt so perfectly balanced with the more character-focused moments. Not a second of the film feels wasted.
 

bumpkin

Member
Great novel and a great movie. It's been several years since I read the original book, but I never read "The Lost World." Still, whenever the movies are on TV, I always watch them. I guess that comes from growing up a dinosaur fanatic. Silly movie cliches aside, I feel like the movies still hold up very well. I was always fascinated with how much of the effects were practical (not CGI). Someday I want to go on the Jurassic Park ride at Universal Studios, I've heard that the dinosaurs in that are on-par with the movie props.

Either way, I love the comparing and contrasting you did OP. It's nice to see there are other JP fans here in GAF!
 
Top Bottom