Jurassic Park (Jurassic Park, #1) Jurassic Park discussion


1232 views
The Movie Was Better then the Book

Comments Showing 1-50 of 239 (239 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5

message 1: by [deleted user] (new)

I really and truely believe that the movie Jurassic Park was way better then the Book.


message 2: by Kerra (new) - added it

Kerra Really?? Darn. I am starting to notice that a lot of the books I have been reading (because the movie is so good you expect the book to be ten times better) the movies are a lot better. However, that movie is a classic and it is hard to beat a good scary thriller movie like that. Still depressing though :(


Chantal Grech It's one of the reasons I always try to read the book first :) But funnily enough I loved the movie and the book of Jurassic Park in different ways, I was able to compartmentalise them a little which is good. Admittedly it was one of the first more grown up books I'd ever read so it holds a special place in my heart :)


message 4: by Kerra (new) - added it

Kerra :) That is really neat that you say that. That is kind of how I imagined it would be for me, to like the movie and the book in different ways. I have been wanting to read this book for a while.


Chantal Grech I thought the book was good, I've re-read it several times, you should give it a shot


message 6: by Kerra (new) - added it

Kerra Thanks :) I will definately do that.


logan I was in love with the movie as a kid. I didn't want to read the book because the movie was so amazing. I finally gave it a shot and was blown away that the book was so much better. I'm wondering if you entered the book with pre notions of how it should be? I for one enjoyed that the book was much more gritty then the family friendly movie.

But as others stated, the movie and the book are like two different tellings of the same story.


message 8: by Aly (new) - rated it 5 stars

Aly I thought the book was waaay better than the movie. Not to beat a dead horse, but it is as others say, they are different tellings. I just enjoyed the book version a bit better. I've read it so often that my copy is falling apart LOL.


******☠Ŗąνĕŋ☠****** The movie was HILARIOUS!!!!!! But yes, I think it was better than the book.


Atarah Poling I enjoyed the book just as much as I did the movie


Veronica I enjoyed both the book and the movie. Which one is better? This is a tough one. I would say the book only because its a little more descriptive than the movie.


message 12: by Kerra (new) - added it

Kerra Lol, you guys are really making me want to go out and buy the book immediately! I loved the movie. It is one of my all time favorites. Hopefully I will get to read the book soon :)


message 13: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Mcclanahan The raptors in the movie were pale copies of the terrifying creatures in the book. Some things are just better portrayed in print. The same goes with the killer apes in Congo. The movie version just doesn't get it done.

The T. Rex on the other hand............


message 14: by Kerra (new) - added it

Kerra Jim wrote: "The raptors in the movie were pale copies of the terrifying creatures in the book. Some things are just better portrayed in print. The same goes with the killer apes in Congo. The movie..."

Oh I so agree with that! Congo the book was amazing and then I went out and bought the movie and I absolutely hated the movie. It did not do the book justice at all.


message 15: by [deleted user] (new)

I love them both and own both
but i personally like the books better there is more in them and they go deeper
they are one of my fav books :D


message 16: by Kate (new) - rated it 3 stars

Kate The book certainly makes a lot more sense than the movie, but I enjoy equally in their own ways.


SealyBug Rogers I was so glad I saw the movie first because if I had read the book first I would have hated the movie. I love the book and though I thoroughly enjoy the movie, it has no comparison to the book. It's still one of my all time favorites.


message 18: by Connie (last edited Apr 01, 2011 09:37PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Connie I loved the book - it was utterly terrifying! (Maybe I just have a good imagination...) But it seemed very vivid and real. The movie, by comparison seemed cheesy and fake. And it was fairly well done, but they raptors were a lot scarier in my head while I was reading the book!


message 19: by [deleted user] (new)

Connie wrote: "I loved the book - it was utterly terrifying! (Maybe I just have a good imagination...) But it seemed very vivid and real. The movie, by comparison seemed cheesy and fake. And it was fairly..."
totally agree about the raptors!


Jea0126 I thought the book was much better than the movie. If they would have made the movie with the same scenes from the book then it would have had to have been rated R. Plus there was some extra stuff they threw into the movie that wasn't explained in the movie but was explained in the book like the comment that Dr. Grant makes about the frog DNA and its importance. All of Crichton's books were better than his movies mostly because Hollywood always made the giant mistake of telling the ending first.


Christian When I was reading the book I thought, what a great book on chaos theory, and the importance of responsibility in science. the only parts I really found boring were those passages dealing with dinosaurs.


Kelly-anne.♥. I think the second movie was a lot better than the first one, but it was still good! Overall the book is way better though! (:


message 23: by Gerd (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gerd Love both the book and the movie.
There's much that had to have been left out from the movie, true, but the script has such a brilliant flow and creates despite some heavy changes such terrific characters that really make it stand out on it's own.


Blair No way the book was way better than the movie, the characters had much more depth and there was so much more meat. The movie was awesome tho


message 25: by Kerra (new) - added it

Kerra As a child that movie scared me to death :D But, I really do love the movie. However, I havn't got the chance to read the book yet. I am very excited to though. Have you guys read Timeline by him yet? It is also an amazing story.


message 26: by Ken (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ken For Jurassic Park, it's very tough to compare since both the movie and book were excellent, but in my opinion the book was better. Crichton (really in all his works) does such an amazing job detailing the science behind his stories in an engaging and accessible way that you can't help but learn so much from reading them. There's only so much of that you can do in a movie. I also think there was a bit more character development in the book.
Congo, on the other hand - there's no contest. Book trumps movie by far.


message 27: by [deleted user] (new)

The book/movie concept was good -somewhat plausible. I have to really believe the story line is possible. I like books like Time and Again and A Familiar Rain because they are realistic as well as entertaining.


Kimberly Feliciano It never really occurred to me to compare these two since, as has already been mentioned here, I actually liked both the novel and the movie for different reasons. The casting, in particular, is perfection, which boosts my opinion of the movie; I also think the filmmakers chose smart and small things to change rather than departing entirely from chunks of the novel Besides, the special effects are still completely enjoyable and watchable even today, and that's saying something. Jurassic Park is by far the best adaptation of a Michael Crichton novel. I shudder to think about the debacle that was Timeline (Paul Walker!?) and I can't even TALK about Sphere. Horrible.


Amanda I can not watch the movie without being disappointed! the book is way better, it gave more insight and recognition to the biology aspect of cloning and evolution. The movie was entertaining in it's own way, but wasn't as thrilling as the book was


Blake Bowen The movie and the book were both alright. I preferred the book more.

I remember reading Jaws a couple years ago. I liked the movie a lot more than the book. The book was a romance story with a shark thrown in.


William Dalphin It's hard to compare the movie and the book because the movie was changed so dramatically. People live in the movie who die in the book and die in the movie who live in the book. For example, the lawyer Gennaro not only survived in the book, he comes off looking pretty darn brave in contrast to his movie version. In the movie, his character is combined with the publicist who abandons the kids and gets eaten by the baby T-Rex. He is portrayed as sleazy and cowardly, a completely different person from the book. Also, Muldoon the warden survives the book. He ends up, if I remember correctly, hiding out inside some pipework, blowing the legs off the raptors as they try to get to him.

And by stark contrast, Hammond himself is killed by compies in the book. And, though it is highly-debated thanks to Crichton's written-to-be-a-movie sequel, I still stand by the declaration that Malcolm dies from his injuries in the book, whereas in the movie he escapes without the slightest hint of being knocking at death's door loudly.

On the other hand, the book has the benefit of avoiding the silly "for the kids" moments like the girl getting covered in dino-snot, or that hilarious UNIX environment for an operating system. I personally prefer reading the book to watching the movie, but I recognize that there are elements to each that are so unique as to make them two entirely different stories.


Brandon Wil wrote: "And by stark contrast, Hammond himself is killed by compies in the book. And, though it is highly-debated thanks to Crichton's written-to-be-a-movie sequel, I still stand by the declaration that Malcolm dies from his injuries in the book, whereas in the movie he escapes without the slightest hint of being knocking at death's door loudly."

And, in the book, you're happy when Hammond dies, because he is a horrible, money grubbing, power monger, whereas in the movie he is portrayed as basically someone with good intentions who wants to bring joy to the world - like he's Santa Claus bringing the world dinosaurs instead of wrapped presents.

As far as Malcolm goes, there's really no question to me that he died in the first book. I remember commenting to a friend how surprised I was that he got killed, since he not only made it out of the first movie, but featured prominently in the second. It made me wonder how much different the novel The Lost World would be compared to the movie. I was fairly shocked to see that the descriptions of his death were, apparently, greatly exaggerated.

I just wonder if it was Crichton's idea to bring him back, or if the movie studios realized how popular the character was, and decided he needed to be in the sequel.


message 33: by Ruby (new) - rated it 3 stars

Ruby Hollyberry I often like movies better, including this one. Handmaid's Tale and The Princess Bride also come to mind.


message 34: by Gerd (last edited Apr 21, 2011 08:25AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gerd Brandon wrote: "Wil wrote: "And by stark contrast, Hammond himself is killed by compies in the book. And, though it is highly-debated thanks to Crichton's written-to-be-a-movie sequel, I still stand by the declara..."

I think I remember The Lost World to feature a much similar opening by the author to the one that Morrell used for his Rambo: First Blood Part II, i.e. "In my original book (insert character) died at the end..."

However, I thought it was great how Crichton used the sequel to incorporate newer research and to rectify some of the errors he made in the first based on earlier assumptions about dinosaurs.


Paula I saw the movie first and really enjoyed it. Later I read the book which I liked also, but preferred the movie. I will gladly watch the moive over and over, however the book is a one time read.


message 36: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Mcclanahan I read the book prior to seeing the film and also read The Lost World before seeing the movie. Re the latter, I was disappointed to not "see" any invisible dinosaurs in the film. Otherwise it was okay. I actually liked the third movie in the series better. Maybe it was because it didn't have a book to draw from.


message 37: by Eric (last edited Apr 25, 2011 12:41PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Eric Mesa What I liked about the book more than the movie included:

1) The way that Critchon always mixed the science and pseudo-science so well that you could almost believe it for a second - this type of thing will always work better in print than on the silver screen.
2) Dennis Nedry's death is way more satisfying in the book - considering the havok he wreaked
3) The intro to the book and movie compliment each other - both showing a different side of the same event - the guy who gets mauled in the raptor cage. However, the book's opening, including the part with the girl on the beach really helped to set in motion the idea of chaos - that there were so many things ignored in the blood/saliva samples that could have tipped people off. Plus the second time you read it (I must have done so at least five times), you realize that the ending where they reveal that dinos are getting loose was actually told to you right in the beginning!


Kevin Milligan It has been a long time since I read this bood but I remember it being better than the movie. Hammonds (If I remember his name correctly) death was appreciated and needed to be in the movie.


Mike J When I find a movie that I love, I almost never read the book because it ruins the movie. Books have the opportunity to develop more complex plots and characters, and generally overshadow the movie adaptation. And, as someone else mentioned, books are often able to give a better sense of realism when the author knows how to play the imagination.

I loved the book. I thought the movie was great, but I missed some of what was cut.


message 40: by [deleted user] (last edited Apr 25, 2011 09:22PM) (new)

For me it's impossible to compare movies to the books they are based on. The book always wins. But they both take up approximately the same spot in their respective lists. If forced to choose, I would say Jurassic Park the book is higher up on my book list than the movie is on my movie list. But its definitely close. I think if I saw the movie on the big screen again it would jump up a few notches. I've seen it so many times on television that I think I've forgotten some of the impact it had the first time I saw it. Thoroughly loved the book though.

Come to think of it, I like the ride most of all though, even better than the book and movie combined, actually. ;)

Springer


Jeremy The movie is never better than the book.


message 42: by Jim (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jim Mcclanahan Jeremy wrote: "The movie is never better than the book."

I can think of one exception (at least in my view): Years back, I read Sphinx by Robin Cook. I found it to be a quite entertaining read. In 1981 they made a movie of it with Lesley-Anne Down and Frank Langela. Didn't make much of a ripple in the Hollywood firmament, but it incorporated a clever plot twist that I felt made it a better story. I won't say what in case someone actually wants to see it. There seems to be a new DVD edition out.


message 43: by Thom (new) - rated it 4 stars

Thom Swennes I would have to side with those that found the movie better than the book. For one thing the books was way too short to do the basic idea justice.


message 44: by Iris (new) - rated it 5 stars

Iris Nooo, the book is so much better than the film!


Robin Book was better than the movie. In the book the girl character was supposedly younger than her brother. In the movie, the girl was older.


message 46: by Thom (new) - rated it 4 stars

Thom Swennes Why do the children's ages make a difference?


message 47: by Jodi (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jodi The book was 100 times better then the movie.


Robin Thom the children's ages do not make a difference, and I notice you are following me around from the Catch-22 thread. Seems like Hollywood took license on who was the older of the two, and they changed it. Big Whoop!


Andrea I found that the book was much better. In the movie, I loved some characters that after reading the book, I hated. I found the book gave me more insight on what was going on, and explained everything much clearer than the movie. The book took me deeper into the story than the movie did, which is why I enjoyed the book far more.


message 50: by Nz (new) - rated it 2 stars

Nz The only Movie I felt that was slightly better than the book was 2001 A space odyssey.


« previous 1 3 4 5
back to top