Jurassic Park

[huitzilopochtli]

Man I loved that movie. But I love the book more, and that's the driving force behind this thread. The book was awesome. Without a doubt my favourite Michael Crichton novel (the sequel being my second favourite) and possibly my favourite work of science fiction ever. So why isn't the movie also a favourite?

OK, so it's asking a lot to expect a movie to live up to the standard set by the book. A few have done it, but most don't even come close, and while it's always entertaining to watch dinosaurs chase people around an island, Jurassic Park as a movie falls into the latter category. First off, it's showing its age. Nearly 20 years old, it really can't compare with CGI. Watching it now, close ups of the velociraptors are funny, not terrifying. It detracts from the movie, but it can't be helped I suppose, so lets not dwell on it any longer.

Setting age aside, the movie had a lot of other issues, particularly with mistakes. Errors in filmmaking are numerous. The worst offender to my mind being misspelling the names of stegosaurus and tyrannosaurus labels in the embryo freezer, but I'm sure you've got your own if you've watched it a few times. Basically, the proofreader (or whatever the filmmaking equivalent is) dropped the ball.

My biggest problem with the movie, though, was its deviation from the book. I hate it when movies do that. Sometimes it's unavoidable, and in time I will begrudgingly come to accept the alteration. A lot of the time it doesn't seem necessary at all, though, and it bugs me from the moment I notice it to...well right now. I'm still annoyed about it. I assume I'll still be annoyed later on, and after that, and so on, until it's either fixed or I'm dead and have other things to worry about.

Some of the changes, off the top of my head, that I really didn't like include: 1. Role reversal for Tim and Lex. Why? What was the reason for that? As far as I can tell it was simply gratuitous. 2. Romance between Sattler and Grant, and the flirting scene between Malcolm and Sattler. Just... why? The former wasn't played up enough to make it worthwhile including, and didn't exist at all in the book, and the latter was supposed to be Gennaro taking a minor interest in the shorts-wearing paleobotanist, and he didn't get any further than watching her help a sick stegosaurus. 3. Why is it a triceratops that's ill? It was a stegosaurus in the book, why change it? They're both highly recognizable dinosaurs, was there really a need to change it? 4. Why no Ed Regis? An additional character offers more opportunity for someone being killed by a dino. Surely that's a bonus? The list goes on.

Right. So far this has pretty much just been an opportunity for me to rant about one of my pet peeves, and if you've managed to read this far you're probably wondering if that's all this post is going to be. It's not. I have a point, an opportunity for you to get involved in the discussion. I'll get to it in a minute. I just wanted to insert this paragraph to thank you for reading this far.

Onto my point: Wouldn't it be great if they remade that movie? I'm not interested so much in whether it's likely or whether it would be profitable for those involved, but wouldn't it be great? Would you or would you not like to see a Jurassic Park made today, as a movie that kept to the book and took advantage of modern special effects etc.? Sure, we probably wouldn't get Jeff Goldblum or Sam Neill for their respective roles again, but we could have a movie that included the potential ecological disaster in Costa Rica, the perilous position InGen was in regarding investors, Ed Regis, the volatile and ruthless personality of John Hammond (why didn't he die at the end?), modern CGI dinosaurs that will put the puppets to shame (lets not get sentimental for the sake of it) and the benefit of decades of new dinosaur information*. I want to see Velociraptors and Tyrannosaurs with feathers that look terrifying. At the very least we could fix the errors.

I can't be the only person who'd like to see this. Have dinosaurs become too outdated for people to care? Am I just a living fossil from a time gone by (I couldn't resist ). Well, what you think?


*I don't care if it's inaccurate, the raptors need to be six foot tall. Make them Utahraptors if you need to, but two foot raptors are not scary. They're adorable.

[Hellebore]

i would definitely like to see a true to book jarassic park movie, but it wouldn't be for kids.

As an aside, Crichton actually worked on the screenplay, so he is partially to blame for its deviation.

Hellebore

[Burnthem]

First off, it's showing its age. Nearly 20 years old, it really can't compare with CGI. Watching it now, close ups of the velociraptors are funny, not terrifying. It detracts from the movie, but it can't be helped I suppose, so lets not dwell on it any longer.

Setting age aside, the movie had a lot of other issues, particularly with mistakes. Errors in filmmaking are numerous.

I think it holds up well considering its age, plenty of other films from around that time and even more recent than that look horrendous. And my favourite mistake is the hand coming out to steady the Raptor that first opens the door to the kitchen, easy to miss, but once you've seen it you can't unsee it.

As for a remake, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it's done, after all that's pretty much all Hollywood does these days.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I actually thought it stuck very well to the book, unsurprisingly since Crichton was involved in the screenplay. Very minor differences like substituting a triceratops for a stegosaurus really didn't bother me, indeed I never noticed! The differences were really very small between book and film and many of them just elements edited out quite reasonably in the interest of time and some I felt were improvements.

I do find that all these complaints can be levelled at the Lost World though. Clearly the book was written as a sequel to the film, not really the first book (not least because he resurrected a deceased character that didn't die in the film!). It was a good book, not great, very much "Jurassic Park (again)" but that's okay for a sequel, right? But then when they came to making the second film they appeared to take the novel, which was clearly written as a basis for a film sequel, and threw it out the window. Nothing in the film really corresponded to the book at all, other than as I recall one scene. Film was okay but it could have been a whole lot better if it had been based on the book as the first film had been.

[huitzilopochtli]

Regarding Crichton's involvement with the screenplay - As I haven't seen the movie in a few years I checked some of my facts with IMDB, and according to the site Crichton didn't write the screenplay used for the film. He wrote the first draft, and as such appears in the credits, but David Koepp (who wrote the final draft) didn't even read Crichton's draft and basically wrote it all. Crichton was subsequently not involved in the screenplay for the sequel. Koepp did it again.

Not that Crichton needs defending for deviation or lauding for staying true to book, just something to consider.

Regarding the second book, Lord Inquisitor, why else do you believe the second book was written as a sequel to the movie and not the book? I'm not disagreeing with you, I figured the same when Malcolm was brought back, I just never noticed any other indications.

[Ultimate Life Form]

I remember that book; back when I still was in school I got the English version from the library and read it at home. That was about 14 years ago I suppose? I don't remember the details, but I know it was quite different from the movie I remembered. Especially nowadays where to me as an adult the unbearable comic relief scenes and the cheap showmanship of the movies really stand out in a very, very bad way. Maybe I'll get the book again...

I don't mind the effects, be it in movies or games. Effects age as we and the movies do. Older movies have bad effects. It's simply natural. And in time, when the film is considered a classic, it becomes charming. Heck, I really enjoy the Godzilla series that's basically men in rubber suits who are barely able to move waddling around in an embarrassing way. Effects are not everything.

As for the deviations and the remakes:

Sadly there are problems involved here that are irrevocably intertwined. If you want to make a movie of this scale, you need money. Like, really really really a LOT of money. Or the special effects will not live up to your expectations. To pull off the SE and get decent avtors you need Hollywood. There's no way around it. Now here's where the problems begin: Because Hollywood likes to produce utter trash. I mean it. They want to make their money back and earn themselves a fortune. In order to do this the movie needs to appeal to a very broad spectrum of people. And in order for this to work you need a dumbed-down, kids-friendly story that is buried somewhere beneath a thick layer of ridiculous special effects. Just look what they did to Terminator 3 in order to get that 12+ rating. They'll do the same to Jurassic Park. And... TA-DAAA! You got the original movie again. So no point remaking it I'm afraid. Because it will be about as scary as Barney and his Friends.

[Chaos and Evil]

Didn't the book have a bunch of scenes where a character (Muldoon?) hunts Raptors with a rocket launcher? Particularly silly.

The kids' ages got swapped in the film because Spielburg had already chosen the actor for Tim from when he applied for a part on Hook.

[AndrewGPaul]

I don't remember that, but IIRC the book had an extended scene where most of the characters end up in the raptors' nest after saving one of the infants, where they realise they have the beginnings of communication and intelligence. Obviously that never made it into the film, but you can see how it was incorporated into the third film.

Also, didn't Hammond end up eaten in the book?

[Ultimate Life Form]

Also, didn't Hammond end up eaten in the book?

Yes, indeed, as far as I recall he was left on his island and subsequently swarmed by compies. This is one thing I didn't like in the book.

The movie depicts him as a friendly old man and loving grandfather. No doubt his main incentive for setting everything up was the money he could make from having the only dinosaurs in existence in his park, but he wasn't a slimy manager type but seemed to be very idealistic and straightforward about the whole matter. He wanted to build his private little utopia on that island and did it as much for himself as for all other people and especially the children. He honestly thought what he was doing was for the best of mankind. His fundamental intentions were very sincere and his enthusiasm blinded him to any flaws and problems in his concept as well as the ethical complications.

At least that's what I like to think.

Doesn't seem right to feed such a nice old chap to the compies just because he made a mistake. But maybe he was less likeable in the book; can't remember.

[AndrewGPaul]

I think he was a little more ruthless in the book - he was, after all, a self-made billionaire, and you don't get that sort of money by being nice to everyone. Still, I agree that it seemed a bit of a harsh ending.

[Verm1s]

OK, so it's asking a lot to expect a movie to live up to the standard set by the book. A few have done it, but most don't even come close, and while it's always entertaining to watch dinosaurs chase people around an island, Jurassic Park as a movie falls into the latter category. First off, it's showing its age. Nearly 20 years old, it really can't compare with CGI.

D'you mean today's CGI? Anyway, I'm with Burnthem:

I think it holds up well considering its age, plenty of other films from around that time and even more recent than that look horrendous. And my favourite mistake is the hand coming out to steady the Raptor that first opens the door to the kitchen, easy to miss, but once you've seen it you can't unsee it.

I think the CGI has aged a bit, but it's taken nearly twenty years of further CGI effects to make it show. It's a bit like digital sculpting for miniatures IMO: people jumped on it as the new wonder-technique for effortless, flawless results, although you still need traditional techniques and knowledge, and old-fashioned hard work to make it look good.

And I never noticed the hand.

The worst offender to my mind being misspelling the names of stegosaurus and tyrannosaurus labels in the embryo freezer

And Metriacanthasaurus!

And if the tyrannosaur pushed the land cruiser through the hole in the fence, and it fell way down a very tall concrete wall into the trees below, where did the tyrannosaur stand to break out? Where did the cage with the goat appear from?

My biggest problem with the movie, though, was its deviation from the book. I hate it when movies do that. Sometimes it's unavoidable, and in time I will begrudgingly come to accept the alteration. A lot of the time it doesn't seem necessary at all, though, and it bugs me from the moment I notice it to...well right now. I'm still annoyed about it. I assume I'll still be annoyed later on, and after that, and so on, until it's either fixed or I'm dead and have other things to worry about.

Me too. I read the book after the novel in JP's case, which usually helps lower the nerdrage, but yeah: every time I watch the movie I cringe a little more. This is where the movie really ages. What ULF says:

Especially nowadays where to me as an adult the unbearable comic relief scenes and the cheap showmanship of the movies really stand out in a very, very bad way.

Though I'd personally rather they remade LotR first, and kept Peter Jackson well away from it. With shotguns and shockprods.

4. Why no Ed Regis? An additional character offers more opportunity for someone being killed by a dino. Surely that's a bonus?

Well, he doesn't do a whole lot, apart from whine that he has to babysit two kids. If you want dinosaur fodder you might as well have nameless park workers shoehorned in there. Although I'm a bit disappointed they gave his general fate to a slightly miscast Gennaro, who gets pretty good jobs and roles later on.

Have dinosaurs become too outdated for people to care?

There have been some ridiculously long strides made in palaeontology (that is: ridiculously long, not ridiculous and long) the last couple of decades. Interested people keep up and marvel at the new knowledge; but as far as I can see, Jurassic Park marked the end of palaeontology for big parts of the general public (or at least, parts of the internet-going public) and the most you can hope for from there is "Oh noes raptirs and teerex* look like big chikkins now ablooblobloo!". As if palaeontologists (or the dinosaurs themselves) are the GW of science, changing the 'fluff' around every so often, just to annoy a random person's sense of childhood and nostalgia.

*Don't get me started on 'T-rex'. Starts to look and sound like casual clothing mixed up with an overhyped sleb.

Ahem. Anyway.

But then when they came to making the second film they appeared to take the novel, which was clearly written as a basis for a film sequel, and threw it out the window. Nothing in the film really corresponded to the book at all, other than as I recall one scene.

I still have nightmares about gymnastics.

Heck, I really enjoy the Godzilla series that's basically men in rubber suits who are barely able to move waddling around in an embarrassing way. Effects are not everything.

Weeell... some of the stuff in the '90s-2000s movies aren't too bad. At least compared to the '60s and '70s.

Didn't the book have a bunch of scenes where a character (Muldoon?) hunts Raptors with a rocket launcher? Particularly silly.

Sorry C&E. Looks like your keyboard got all messed up. You typed out 'silly' when you meant 'awesome'.

Doesn't seem right to feed such a nice old chap to the compies just because he made a mistake. But maybe he was less likeable in the book; can't remember.

Yep. He wasn't monstrous, but just before he bought it, he was fuming about all the idiots who ruined his park - from head biotechnician Henry Wu to his own grandkids - and how he'd get rid of them all before his next dino-park attempt. Add to that all the stubborn refusals to listen to anyone about the failures of his park, during the story.

Oh, and while we're talking about annoying movie bits: the compies were scavengers (their role in the park), and got Hammond because he was an old man who'd fallen down a hill, broken his ankle, and couldn't get up. A good, helpless target to be finished off by their venom. And they still just crept up slowly on him. They didn't just all descend on a fit, healthy man in his prime like a mob of piranha ducks.

[Inquisitor Engel]

I actually preferred the character arcs in the movie to the book, to be honest. Hammond in the book was a total *******, only concerned about profits. While I agree there's some things that the movie falls flat with (most of the actors are horrendously flat) I think the main difference between the book and the movie is that the book, like all MC books, is about people's response to technology and science. The movie is about dinosaurs and the people are window dressing.

[MOMUS]

i would definitely like to see a true to book jarassic park movie, but it wouldn't be for kids.

Hellebore

Never a truer word spoken

It would be great if it really did follow the book, exactly. My favourite bit was when the Dilophosaurus attack mwhahahahhaha

Yes, indeed, as far as I recall he was left on his island and subsequently swarmed by compies. This is one thing I didn't like in the book..

Actaully he wasnt left behind he was long dead, he thought the baby rex was hunting him. Lex and Tim had found the 'T-rex roar button' in the control room and kept pressing it causing Hammond to fall and sprain his ankle.

[Sgt John Keel]

modern CGI dinosaurs that will put the puppets to shame

Did you watch Terra Nova? I'll take the Jurassic Park puppets over that every day of the week and twice on a Sunday.

[Deamon-forge]

i love the film an the book's.

a true to book remake of JP would be very good. but never happen i dont think. im glade no one has talked about the abomination that was JP3 lol. i think i mite have ot break out the book again i think.

[huitzilopochtli]

Sorry C&E. Looks like your keyboard got all messed up. You typed out 'silly' when you meant 'awesome'.

You, sir, win.

@ Sgt John Keel
No, I haven't seen it I'm afraid. Perhaps I'm overestimating the ability of special effects to sufficiently render the dinosaurs in my head on screen. However, every time I go back to the movie I grow a little more disillusioned with the awkward and ungainly representation of the puppets/animatronics. I wish I were 8 (or 6, or 4, I don't remember how old I was when I first saw it) again so I could just enjoy it, but unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen.

Yes, lets not talk about JP3's plot. But lets do agree that the puppets/animatronics/effects had all improved since the first. I'll say no more.

I do have one slight reservation for the remaking of Jurassic Park, though. While at first I was excited to imagine addressing factual errors present in the book and incorporating new information and knowledge, I wonder would it require too much rewriting and detract from any possibility of being true to book?

And yes, I know it's not likely to be remade true to book. As ULF pointed out, if a remake is made, it'll be rubbish. I'm just saying, wouldn't it be cool if it weren't?

[Verm1s]

You, sir, win.

Hurrah! What do I get?

A speedboat for my council flat?

I do have one slight reservation for the remaking of Jurassic Park, though. While at first I was excited to imagine addressing factual errors present in the book and incorporating new information and knowledge, I wonder would it require too much rewriting and detract from any possibility of being true to book?

Well, the skylight bars would probably have to be made of cardboard, to keep the same sense of dread and tension...

[Lord Inquisitor]

Regarding the second book, Lord Inquisitor, why else do you believe the second book was written as a sequel to the movie and not the book? I'm not disagreeing with you, I figured the same when Malcolm was brought back, I just never noticed any other indications.

I'm trying to remember now (it's been a while since I read or watched the Lost World) ... It was mostly Malcolm but I thought there were a few hooks here or there that seemed to make more sense as a sequel to the movie rather than the book. Indeed, just the existence of a sequel at all felt like it was pressure from hollywood to write another one. After all, I don't think he's made a sequel to any of his other books. The first book's ending seemed quite decisive and there seemed to be a lot of retconning to get the second book to work at all, especially given the ending of the first book (but not film).

[Chaos and Evil]

Hurrah! What do I get?

a rocket launcher to hunt raptors with.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I'm going to have to convert up one of my guardsmen to look like Muldoon with a rocket launcher...