Jurassic Park (the movie) vs Jurassic Park (the book)

[RedFoxOne]

I see.

I can't say I had many of these specific issues. The raptors really worried me from the trailer but in the actual film I thought they were handled okay. You can train a dog . . . you can train a tiger . . . why not a raptor?

I also wasn't really bothered by the hybrid dinosaur. Some shit like that seems EXACTLY like what some scientists with that level of power and autonomy would come up with. Why not?

I thought Pratt was likable as usual and BDH was nice to look at. As for the kids, they were okay--the younger one especially I thought gave a good performance--but they definitely did not have the same level of personality as the kids from JP. I'll give you that.

All in all, if Jurassic Park is a 10, I think Jurassic World is still a solid 7.5. Not a great film. Not a classic. But still entertaining enough and better than the two sequels that came before it.

At its simplest. Jurassic Park is about morality. It questions the use of science. The argument, as presented through Dr. Ian Malcolm, was that science can surely create, and those who create are themselves creators, but they are not controllers. The mechanism of control is far greater and more difficult to understand, hence 'chaos theory.' And knowing this, we must be humble in our efforts, for they can manifest themselves in ways we never could have predicted.

Jurassic Park deals with this subject most handsomely. It shows us that those who created were not in control of their creations. In Jurassic World, they gloss over this issue, and 'Jurassic Park' is regulated to an eBay joke in the film. But really, the joke was on anyone who expected some semblance of quality and forethought outside of merchandising avenues.

For example, each character in Jurassic World had some semblance of perceived control over things: Pratt with his Raptors, BDH with the park, and Khan with Dr.Wu/Wong. And yet, this film does not even acknowledge or address the fundamental narrative plot device of the past films....YOU CAN'T CONTROL SHIT! HUMANS ARE ASSHOLES AND DINOSAURS WILL FUCK UP YOUR LIFE! THEN, THEY'LL EAT YOU!

Jurassic World skims over all of this, throws it in a fire and pours gasoline on it. There are good guys; nothing bad happens to them. There are bad guys; bad things happen to them. There are dinosaurs, they go raw. /End

Garbage.

 

[Guestx]

At its simplest. Jurassic Park is about morality. It questions the use of science. The argument, as presented through Dr. Ian Malcolm, was that science can surely create, and those who create are themselves creators, but they are not controllers. The mechanism of control is far greater and more difficult to understand, hence 'chaos theory.' And knowing this, we must be humble in our efforts, for they can manifest themselves in ways we never could have predicted.

Jurassic Park deals with this subject most handsomely. It shows us that those who created were not in control of their creations. In Jurassic World, they gloss over this issue, and 'Jurassic Park' is regulated to an eBay joke in the film. But really, the joke was on anyone who expected some semblance of quality and forethought outside of merchandising avenues.

For example, each character in Jurassic World had some semblance of perceived control over things: Pratt with his Raptors, BDH with the park, and Khan with Dr.Wu/Wong. And yet, this film does not even acknowledge or address the fundamental narrative plot device of the past films....YOU CAN'T CONTROL SHIT! HUMANS ARE ASSHOLES AND DINOSAURS WILL FUCK UP YOUR LIFE! THEN, THEY'LL EAT YOU!

Jurassic World skims over all of this, throws it in a fire and pours gasoline on it. There are good guys; nothing bad happens to them. There are bad guys; bad things happen to them. There are dinosaurs, they go raw. /End

Garbage.

I didn't mind that for two reasons:

1. That was already handled in the first film. Do we want to re-tread that?

2. There's no actual reason why a dino park couldn't be built, and built successfully. Are we able to build zoos? Yes. So we can build a dino park.

When I think of Jurassic Park--the movie at least--I don't think first of the moral questions that are raised. I think first about the sense of wonder that it engendered within me when I first saw it.

 

[RedFoxOne]

I didn't mind that for two reasons:

1. That was already handled in the first film. Do we want to re-tread that?

2. There's no actual reason why a dino park couldn't be built, and built successfully. Are we able to build zoos? Yes. So we can build a dino park.

When I think of Jurassic Park--the movie at least--I don't think first of the moral questions that are raised. I think first about the sense of wonder that it engendered within me when I first saw it.

1. Of course. Otherwise, it's a disservice to the films that came before it and makes a mockery of the franchise. The narrative of Crichton's and Spielberg's individual efforts are paramount. Without those, the films are nothing more than Peter Jackson's King Kong. Dinosaurs and monkeys stomping around shit with people underneath them.

2. Once again, this is the subtext of the entire series. No, a dinosaur themed park can not be built and sustained. It will not be successful. It will fail, and in turn, people will die. In Jurassic Park, this issue is the backbone of the film.

 

[Guestx]

1. Of course. Otherwise, it's a disservice to the films that came before it and makes a mockery of the franchise. The narrative of Crichton's and Spielberg's individual efforts are paramount. Without those, the films are nothing more than Peter Jackson's King Kong. Dinosaurs and monkeys stomping around shit with people underneath them.

2. Once again, this is the subtext of the entire series. No, a dinosaur themed park can not be built and sustained. It will not be successful. It will fail, and in turn, people will die. In Jurassic Park, this issue is the backbone of the film.

I think that, in reality, a dino park can totally be built. That is, at least, if we had dinos. The whole "chaos theory" angle is interesting, but there is no actual reason why, with enough research and understanding of the individual creatures, we couldn't build a dino park in the same way we build a zoo.

Do lions and tigers and bears someone just naturally bust some chaos theory on zoo goers' fucking asses and escape their enclosures and eat everyone? No.

Shit, I'd be down to watch a Jurassic Park movie where it's just people walking through a successful park, chilling with the dinosaurs.

In JP, Hammond had a good idea that went awry for no real reason beyond lack of research. Well, we're 25 years into the future now. A lot could've been done to better understand those creatures in that time frame.

 

[JBSchroeds]

I've read both Jurassic Park and Lost World. Both amazing books. The movies are fun but nothing like the books. This always happens to adaptations of Chrichtons works. I really wish somebody would remake 13th Warrior. It's my favorite book by him.

Have you read Beowulf? If you've read it then it makes Eaters of the Dead so much better. I read it both before and after Beowulf, and while I certainly enjoyed it the first time it makes a world of difference when you see how everything has been adapted.

 

[RedFoxOne]

I think that, in reality, a dino park can totally be built. That is, at least, if we had dinos. The whole "chaos theory" angle is interesting, but there is no actual reason why, with enough research and understanding of the individual creatures, we couldn't build a dino park in the same way we build a zoo.

Do lions and tigers and bears someone just naturally bust some chaos theory on zoo goers' fucking asses and escape their enclosures and eat everyone? No.

Shit, I'd be down to watch a Jurassic Park movie where it's just people walking through a successful park, chilling with the dinosaurs.

In JP, Hammond had a good idea that went awry for no real reason beyond lack of research. Well, we're 25 years into the future now. A lot could've been done to better understand those creatures in that time frame.

Really, we're just having the same argument the characters in the film are having.

Those are Hammond's own arguments and reasonings, "make the one I have down in Kenya look like a petting zoo."

He thought, if lions and tigers, why not dinosaurs?

And the answer is exactly that, dinosaurs. We do not have the observatory knowledge of dinosaurs and their predatory instincts, mating habits, interactions etc. etc.

We do not understand or can possibly conceptualize what would happen if we reintroduced dinosaurs into the 20th century.

Have you read Beowulf? If you've read it then it makes Eaters of the Dead so much better. I read it both before and after Beowulf, and while I certainly enjoyed it the first time it makes a world of difference when you see how everything has been adapted.

Predator is a modern day Beowulf, in essence.

 

[Guestx]

Really, we're just having the same argument the characters in the film are having.

Those are Hammond's own arguments and reasonings, "make the one I have down in Kenya look like a petting zoo."

He thought, if lions and tigers, why not dinosaurs?

And the answer is exactly that, dinosaurs. We do not have the observatory knowledge of dinosaurs and their predatory instincts, mating habits, interactions etc. etc.

We do not understand or can possibly conceptualize what would happen if we reintroduced dinosaurs into the 20th century.

Sure, but that situation changes at time goes on. Presumably we have, in some capacity, continued to study these creatures in great detail since the events of JP. It's not 1993 anymore.

 

[Loiosh]

I think that, in reality, a dino park can totally be built. That is, at least, if we had dinos. The whole "chaos theory" angle is interesting, but there is no actual reason why, with enough research and understanding of the individual creatures, we couldn't build a dino park in the same way we build a zoo.

@Zookeeper Gabe

Could it be done? Could we build a zoo to contain dinosaurs?

You have to wonder how much space a carnivore like T Rex would require.

 

[HereticBD]

I like Billy and the Cloneasaurus better.

LOL, nostalgia heart attack.

Apu's bitching out is legendary.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

Have you read Beowulf? If you've read it then it makes Eaters of the Dead so much better. I read it both before and after Beowulf, and while I certainly enjoyed it the first time it makes a world of difference when you see how everything has been adapted.

I read it after I read 13th Warrior and I could totally see the connections. I wish a good Beowulf movie would be made.

 

[Guestx]

I read it after I read 13th Warrior and I could totally see the connections. I wish a good Beowulf movie would be made.

I actually liked Robert Zemeckis's CGI fest that came out a handful of years ago.

 

[Zookeeper Gabe]

@Zookeeper Gabe

Could it be done? Could we build a zoo to contain dinosaurs?

You have to wonder how much space a carnivore like T Rex would require.

A new polar bear exhibit these days costs about 10-15 million. Just that exhibit, so a zoo with actual dinosaurs would literally costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Not to mention the actual space needed for the animals.

 

[MaveDeltzer]

How about listing the differences between the 2.

Ain't got No time for da book. Thanks Sherbros.

The dino count reveal in the book is still such a great holy shit moment.

I read most of Crichton's book when I worked at a library during my college time (JP, Lost World, Eaters of the Dead, The Andromeda Strain, Airframe, Timeline, Rising Sun, Disclosure, State of Fear, Prey, Congo). I own JP, LW and EotD used to have Mirco but my parents took it when they moved never finished it and only a few months ago saw that B&N was carrying the audio versions of Crichton's books so I grabbed JP and a pack with the abridged versions of Lost World, Airframe & Timeline. Timeline is the only movie based on his stuff I haven't seen.

 

[Guestx]

A new polar bear exhibit these days costs about 10-15 million. Just that exhibit, so a zoo with actual dinosaurs would literally costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Not to mention the actual space needed for the animals.

They spent a billion dollars to open a mall by my house. So that seems do-able.

 

[Adamant]

I'm almost done with the book and I find it to be fantastic! It's definitely different from the movie, but not in a bad way. The movie is a masterpiece, but the book is a masterpiece in its own right. It's a very smooth and easy read. I've read some books that were CLUNKERS and very hard to get through, but JP is breezy and goes by rather quickly. I adore the movie but part of me wishes we got the book in movie form.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

One of the greatest movies of all time or a 'meh' book.