Is it overrated? It hacked the book worse than almost anything has ever. The direction is fairly simplistic

Is it overrated? It hacked the book worse than almost anything has ever. The direction is fairly simplistic.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VMzfrod7hcE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Teeth
youtube.com/watch?v=0u579c5skKQ
youtube.com/watch?v=bLlj_GeKniA
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zaRHU1XxMJQ
youtube.com/watch?v=-GWGouymBxk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Why did they kill Michael Crichton? I think it was that nanotech book but I'm not a Crichton expert

The book spends way too much time in that lab, describing things that don't make any sense if you've got any knowledge of biology.

The only thing I would've kept is the compy scene that got moved to the opening of Lost World.

youtube.com/watch?v=VMzfrod7hcE

Story was simplified, but the changes fir together well. Spielberg was carried by Stan Winston and John Williams. Good casting choices too.

Things movie did better than the book:
>make Hammond an actual sympathetic character who believes in his park instead of just being a greedy, slimy businessman

Things the movie did worse than the book:
>killing Muldoon

That reminds me, movie Gennaro should've stayed Kung Fu book Gennaro, fighting 2 or 3 raptors at once with his bare hands.

But they didn't kill Hammond in the movie so what's the point.

seems like they wanted to write ed regis out, so gennaro becomes hammond and hammond becomes the naive repentant moral compass. then they added his retarded nephew in lost world who is literally book hammond, go figure.

i liked the books opening better than SHOOT HEEEERRRR! also i wanted to see muldoon blow up a t-rex with a bazooka

that sounds really bad. one of the things i love about this movie is that no gun ever hits a dino

It's my favorite movie, but it's not the best movie I've seen. For what it is, it's exceptional. The special effects are amazing.

>The special effects are amazing
...Yes and what else?

Dat egg poisoning part of the book would have made a good scene. Also weird how the Lost World was changed for film form, and while it definitely wasn't as good as the first one still followed the general story and had its moments.

I love both. The book is a deep science fiction novel about playing god and the movie is a great simple adventure with dinosaurs.

A well told story with characters that you get invested in, relate to, and want to succeed and be ok.

The pacing sets up the tension well, and builds the world around the action.

The movie felt real, it felt like you were watching actual dinosaurs. I still feel tense during the kitchen scene.

>playing god
Such a stupid phrase
I don't think it's merely "scientists need to stop and think" but a critique of science no longer being a purely academic pursuit particularly in the field of genetic engineering - themes far from original and thus not "deep."

I heard it was the book about global warming being a scam or whatever, didn't read that one though.

I always saw it (especially after reading the much darker, denser book) as a meta-commentary on theme park cinema, the ultimate summer event theme park movie about the ultimate theme park. In that regard, it's a masterpiece. It also fun to watch Spielberg simply showing off without really having much of a plot to go on. I probably wouldn't put it in my top 5 'Bergs, though.

>We'll never get the James Cameron version of Jurassic Park that was in the works before Speilbergs.

Muldoon never killed a T-rex with a bazooka. That was the raptors when he was trapped in the stack of spare sewer pipes. He killed the T-rex by tranqing it while it was swimming/trying to eat Tim, then it drowned.

>GIT SOME marines attack dinos
>just another lizard hunt
>you ever been mistaken for a Velociraptor, Vasquez?
>ellie satler faces off with T. rex queen at the end and fights her in a robot T. rex

What could have been...

He did actually say himself it would have been Aliens with dinosaurs and that Speilberg did a better job than he would have.

Would a tv series that's closer to the book work?

It's both overrated and not overrated. It's overrated in the sense that it's a simplistic, formulaic movie which carries you along its plot in the same mechanical manner as one of the park's rides, with an annoying shoehorned love/family dynamic that detracts from possibility of exploring the book's darker tones of corporate corruption and the difficulties of controlling nature. On the other hand, it's not overrated in the sense that it succeeds in creating a genuine sense of awe and adventure that few movies do, and it has some charismatic acting performances from Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Laura Dern, Bob Peck and others.

Cont. Both book and movie share a fundamental weakness: to make the dinosaurs truly dangerous, they have to pile a sequence of improbable disasters together: A hard rain hits the island at the exact same time that the park's chief IT guy puts his corporate espionage into motion and a team of outsiders is visiting. The park's employees, meanwhile, are idiotically short on weapons.
The book tries to explain most of these things rather than just leave them coincidences. For example, the lack of weapons is explained by Hammond's paranoia about one of his multimillion dollar animals getting killed. But it's unconvincing.

wtf the book sounds fucking crazy

I hate what they did to Gennaro. In the book he wasn't some cowardly slimy lawyer cliche. He was a competent character who tried to do the right thing.

Not anymore with the author's ded. Just look at Westworld

And also, of course between book and movie the tone radically shifted. The movie ends on an upbeat note. The surrogate family is safe. Only peripheral vaguely negative characters like the slimy lawyer and the great white hunter are dead. The book, on the other hand, looks toward a future in which man's scientific ability outruns his ability to predict its consequences.

Billy and the Clonesaurus was better...

Jurassic Park is both my favorite movie and my favorite book, but for different reasons.

The movie is a very loose adaptation, but takes the material and turns it into a very fun adventure flick. Great performances, great special effects, great music, it's the whole package. The story is more straightforward, but it's serviceable enough and does a good job of keeping the momentum going. Spielberg doing what he does best.

Meanwhile, I appreciate the book for it's darker, scifi horror tone. I also love all of the nonsense scifi mumbo jumbo, and all of the little ethical debates sprinkled throughout. It really activated my almonds, as the kids say. There's also a lot of really cool set pieces in the book that never made it to the big screen, like Muldoon with the rocket launcher and Grant poisoning the eggs to kill the raptors.

Sphere and Congo deserve much better movies that what we got.

Wow, I'm glad to finally see some people besides me who prefer the book to the film. I read the book before watching the movie and I was just so disappointed with the movie. It took a book that I felt actually had a fair amount of depth to it and just turned it into a simplistic thriller about people running from dinosaurs. I've seen so much praise for the movie and I just cannot feel the same way about it. I guess technologically it was impressive for the time but that's about all it's got going for it. I gave Jurassic World a chance back when it came out hoping I would enjoy it more but it was basically just more of the same.

Like, it's not as if I'm a stickler for perfect adaptations, even if in my experience the book always tends to be better than the film. But this one just completely ruined the tone and I have to assume a lot of the people who liked it did not actually read the book.

It might have a totally different titlefrom the book, but there's always 13th Warrior

I agree. The book is great. I haven't seen the movie in years, but I remember thinking that it managed to get out of that mediocre Hollywood template. Certainly one of the better Crichton adaptations.

It's fucking dinosaurs and top-tier special effects. One of those combinations that just gets a yes from the get-go. They got some nice actors together but basically the dinosaurs were the main characters. It's all it wanted to be and all it needed to be to be successful and great to watch.

I thought I'd read the book but this thread has proven otherwise, I remember no Kung Fu lawyers or egg poisoning, though bazookas into raptors does sound familiar. Idk.

>though bazookas into raptors does sound familiar.
They used those in Jurassic World, pretty sure. Maybe you're remembering that.

>hacked the book worse than almost anything has ever

Not at all. The Lost World was 100 times worse in that department. Jurassic Park is 100% 90's kino, even if it wasn't true to the novel.

The State of Fear, the global warming book. Crichton was very redpilled, and an extremely good writer with fantastic worldbuilding.

>redpilled
Ugh, cringe.

Why do people still think that a movie not following the book is an actual valid criticism?

Look at fucking Jaws. The movie was much better cuz they cut out half the subplots that went no where and made the bool crap

>unironically cringeposting

You have to go back. Better yet, kys.

Because in this case they changed an actual good book to something shit.

...*cringes harder*

>Jurassic Park
>shit

Wow, stop posting anytime.

Why are you so mad?

>mad

Nah. Just calling out shitposts as I see them.

>They're shitposts because they make me mad.

No. Because they're shit.

>Because they make me mad.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Teeth

Dude literally died a decade ago and he's STILL putting out books. How does he do it?

If he was so redpilled why did he die? Checkmate, atheists.

You don't even know what mad is, kiddo. I'll fucking end you and your entire plebbit brigade with my unbridled rage. Consider yourself on notice, faggot. I'm coming.

It didn't drown. Just fell asleep. The scene had thentrex attempting to eat Tim and Alex through the waterfall. It's long lizard like tongue was trying to grab Tim and pull him into its mouth. When Muldoon tranq'd it, it snapped its mouth shut, bitting off its own tongue and fell asleep in a shallow pool.

If they killed him because of the book then why did they wait 4 years?

I was kidding. I don't believe he was killed by anything other than cancer.

That was a complete shit call back to the books if that was what that scene in JW was attempting to do.

I thought that the Lost World, the book, sucked ass. I remember being shocked when I read it. Did Crichton just have somebody ghostwrite it, I thought? That's how bad it was compared to JP. The movie didn't really deviate much from the book as far as I remember, it just followed it into sucking. My guess is that Crichton probably felt a lot of pressure to write something to cash in on the post-JP movie buzz, so he did a quick hack job.

Yeah, people need to read the original book.

>It hacked the book worse than almost anything has ever.
I like the book, but damn near every change they made was for the sake of a better movie. The kids in the crighton novel (esp the little girl) were two of the most annoying kids in the history of fiction. Movie kids, I mean they're still kids, but they're fine, they don't drag the movie down. There's a few cool scenes in the book that didn't make it in (Pterodon dome comes to mind), but they had to make some cuts for pacing. The flick is already at max length to maintain the tempo throughout, there wasn't room for superfluous material.

End of the day, everyone in the movie was on top of their game. Casting was flawless, the script was good, direction was probably spielberg's most polished, music was great, and the effects still look pretty damn good two decades later. Hell, there's CGI in movies from two years ago that's aged worse than the stuff in this flick.

No, it's not overrated. Its status is well deserved.

The Lost World was probably his worst work, ever. I think you're right they needed a quick sequel so he threw some shit together.

>tfw no faithful adaptation

I read TLW a couple of years ago and thought it was great, even preferred it to the JP novel

They remixed a couple of the side characters, and I think eliminated one (hammond had a manager working for him in the book I think) IIRC. Most of it got absorbed into hammond. Gennaro just became the redshirt, basically, and they slimed him up for that role. They knew they wanted an early death to ramp up tension, but not a character people would mourn.

I was actually fine with this change. Book Hammond is kinda flat, he's just there to be the generic Immoral Business Man, basically. By mashing it up they made Hammond into arguably the most interesting character in the movie. He's only got a little bit of screentime, but it's all gold. Attenborough would have been wasted in a straight adaptation of book Hammond.

It's a good adventure movie with amazing special effects but it's not high art.

I think the most important contribution its made to society is getting people interested in dinosaurs/paleontology

They switched the ages of the kids so the little girl was no longer a loli, that alone is reason to call the movie shit.

>all of Crichton's novel covers are just pictures of this fucking t-rex tilted at different angles

What the fuck is his deal?

Easily recognisable maybe? Plus it looks good.

They probably wouldn't have used Attenborough if they made a straight adaptation of book Hammond.

the raptors definitely are

in the book they are top-tier murder machines with pain insensitivity

I read an interview with the guy who designed it, he said it's to invoke your own personal image of a T-rex since it's positioned to look alive yet still a lifeless skull. It's to emphasize the whole "this could almost be real" theme of bringing dinosaurs back to life.

BUT SHE KNOWS UNIX SYSTEMS

Which apparently consist of flying through a 3D city to represent the file structure, in this universe, in addition to the console interface we see wayne knight using earlier.

>They probably wouldn't have used Attenborough if they made a straight adaptation of book Hammond.
And that would have been a shame.

I figured he just liked the opening to Dino Riders

youtube.com/watch?v=0u579c5skKQ

TLW book was literally written because Universal wanted Crichton to do it so they could make a movie out of it

>Which apparently consist of flying through a 3D city to represent the file structure, in this universe, in addition to the console interface we see wayne knight using earlier.
Sounds pretty much like Neuromancer?

Cameron JP wouldve been closer to the book, and Spelburg made it a magical adventure movie instead for kids. and hes right. if Cameron JP came out half the people wouldnt have seen it

Pretty much. Except the computers weren't supposed to be the speculative part of the fiction. This is how people in the 90's thought computers really worked. See also: Hackers, The Net.

youtube.com/watch?v=bLlj_GeKniA

Kinda like this.

Dang, a nose ring AND a computer. Didn't realize julia stiles was such a badass rebel.

Our lives are in your hands and you have BUTTERFINGERS??

Reminder that the GUI used in the infamous computer scene is a REAL Unix interface...
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zaRHU1XxMJQ

No way a neckbeard like Newman was implementing that. I can practically picture the character bitching about the maintenance and memory overhead.

>They already had me spend god-knows-how-many-hours on that 3D render for the DNA molecule, which we still haven't been paid to date for, by the way. And now you want a 3D file system? Why?"

>killing Muldoon
I heard the only reason they did this is because they found out Bob Peck had cancer during filming and wouldn't be able to do any sequels.

Roland from JP2 is basically a copy of Muldoon for that reason. The writer really liked Muldoon too.

>Congo deserve much better movies that what we got.
But we wouldn't have one of the best things ever put to a movie screen, user.
youtube.com/watch?v=-GWGouymBxk