The Gang of Five

Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Attic Treasures => Topic started by: Saft on September 03, 2009, 04:33:51 PM

Title: Jurassic Park/Lost World Jurassic Park
Post by: Saft on September 03, 2009, 04:33:51 PM
Well, based on one of the questions that I asked LBT (/see I did mention I'd do this.: :D ) I thought we could discuss these wonderful books.:)

Anyway, I will admit that whilst my father owned the novels I had not actually read them before I saw the movies.  However, when I did read the novels I was struck by the major differences.  

In regards to Jurassic Park, I have to admit that whilst the movie is one of my favourites the book far suppassed it.  It is disappointing about the major differences that took place in the movie, for example...I rather liked the older Tim as the role of the big brother and Lex as the annoying sister.  Mostly because I could associate with Tim slightly.  So Tim became my favourite character.  

What I had a major problem with is the fact that Dr.Malcom died in the first book and magically came back to life for the sequel.  I don't understand how that happened. I remember reading about an interview that took place with Crichton (which I'll try to find again) that mentioned Malcom's ressurection.  

Anyway, I think I've posted enough for now.:)
Title: Jurassic Park/Lost World Jurassic Park
Post by: DarkHououmon on September 03, 2009, 05:50:55 PM
He didn't magically come back to life. In fact, it was explained in the second book what really happened. He was pronounced dead prematurely, likely because of how bad he was off. He did manage to survive, but not before newspapers (I think) were printed out stating that he had died.
Title: Jurassic Park/Lost World Jurassic Park
Post by: Serris on September 03, 2009, 07:04:58 PM
I preferred the books over the movies.
Title: Jurassic Park/Lost World Jurassic Park
Post by: aabicus (LettuceBacon&Tomato) on September 03, 2009, 07:08:10 PM
While both books were different from the movies, it was the Lost World that was radically different to the point of being a different story. There were like three characters in the movie that were actually book characters. I can think of Malcolm, Eddie, Sarah Harding, and maybe some of the bad guys. Practically nobody else made the cut, but that Nick guy was there for some reason :rolleyes . And don't get me started on the T-Rex rampaging through San Diego.
Title: Jurassic Park/Lost World Jurassic Park
Post by: Gentle Sharptooth on April 17, 2017, 09:07:36 AM
Jurassic Park the book and film are almost opposites. JP the book was more of horror, while JP Film is thriller. The book made dinosaurs seem almost like something from "The Island of Dr. Moreau." The fact that the beginning of TLWJP film is essentially part of JP book is interesting. Michael Crichton sure had a gift at suspense and informing the reader on bioengineering, and Chaos Theory.
Title: Jurassic Park/Lost World Jurassic Park
Post by: Coyote_A on April 21, 2017, 08:09:39 PM
I've read both books in English and I have to say... No matter how well the first Jurassic Park movie is, it doesn't exactly do justice to the Sci-Fi part of Michael Crichton's work. And there's no point in commenting on Lost World. The book is a hundred times better. :(
Title: Re: Jurassic Park/Lost World Jurassic Park
Post by: LeventeII on July 18, 2019, 12:56:59 AM
Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park books are masterpieces. Undoubtedly.

I've been reading Jurassic Park and The Lost World since the beginning of the year. I did a presentation about the novel Jurassic Park at school, where I compared some scenes in the book with the film's realizations. The differences are grave, very, even. I came to the conclusion that they are actually incomparable. Maybe one can compare some scenes with each other, for example the kitchen scene, because the differences there were really exciting, but you can't lump the novel together with the film.
If you would make a film of the book exactly one-to-one, it would probably become boring and lengthy. Especially the scene where you see a longneck for the first time is completely unspectacular in the book.
If, on the other hand, one would rewrite the film directly into a book, exactly those things would miss which constitute a book, namely feelings and thoughts, because these can very often be represented better by a book than by a film.

My conclusion is that both the novel and the film succeeded in their very own way.

I have just finished reading The Lost World, and it has made me do what all good books get me to do and should get me to do. It made me think. It gave me the feeling that I had achieved something, that I had used my time more than meaningfully.
Although The Lost World is described as "film template", it is a completely different story. The beginning is vaguely kept at the book and some names as well as the island are identical. But the story in the film proceeds completely different from in the novel. Not only does it proceed differently, the story itself is completely different.

What I particularly like about both novels are the many things you learn about biology, chaos theory and evolution. Theories about the causes of the extinction of species, about the way evolution is influenced. Why dinosaurs have such a special effect on many people and much more.

While Jurassic Park focuses more on genetics and dinosaurs, I noticed that The Lost World is more focused on theories and behavior, at least at those points where one sometimes unconsciously learns very interesting things. These two books never became boring from the beginning to the end. With this variety of excellent things that the books offer, one can sincerely accept that the dinosaurs are partly inaccurate. Most people know that the Raptors are wrong with their 2-meter bodies and their featherless skin. But also other interesting ideas can be found. In certain parts there are even dinosaurs who can shoot poison or who have chameleon abilities. One already knows while reading that these things probably weren't real and that such dinosaurs didn't exist, but it doesn't bother.

Although there is no Jurassic Park with its technology in reality, Michael Crichton manages it that everything seems real. The explanations of how the park works and how the dinosaurs are created are so good that one might think it's real. One forgets that it's science fiction. The boundary between reality and fantasy gets broken, which enormously improves the reading experience.

I can recommend the novels with a clear conscience. It doesn't matter whether you've seen the films or not.
When I started reading the novels in winter, I couldn't have even guessed how good they actually are. But one often recognizes such things only afterwards. Isn't that often the case in life?