Jurassic Franchise and discussion (Triassic and Cretaceous discussions allowed as well)

I truly loved dinosaurs as a kid.  I remember seeing the first Jurassic Park film when I was 11 years old.  Boy, was that a good scare for my young heart, and a dinosaur lover's dream come true as well!  I've read Ender's Game more than any other novel, but next in line would be Jurassic Park.  It's excellent fiction.  Lately I've been re-exploring the franchise, rereading the books and rewatching the films.  I just have to put my thoughts out there.

Warning, spoilersaurus ahead!

Actually, I don't know how many spoilers I will really include, but there will likely be some.  And though I have many thoughts, I'm tired and won't likely be as wordy as I often tend to be.

After watching the first film, I delved into the book and loved it!  I was amazed at how different the film and book were.  The plot seemed only the same in the very essentials: old man creates dinosaur theme park by resurrecting dinosaurs with ancient DNA found in fossilized mosquitoes.  The characters in name are the same, but appearances, personalities, ages, relationships, etc. are drastically different.  Heck, a lot of characters who live and die had even changed.  But I loved them both for their different takes on the story, and ultimately the message is the same.

When The Lost Word came out, I read the book immediately, two years before seeing the film.  If I thought the first film was unfaithful to the source, nothing made me change that opinion more than the contrast with the fidelity of the second film.  The only similarities there were that Malcolm goes to Site B on a different island.  There is so little in common, and truly in the end the message is something else entirely.  In the book, a competing genetics company sends in a small team to obtain dinosaur genetics to boost their own research.  This is the same company that prompted Nedry in the first film/book to steal for them.  And the leader of this team is the same man who hired Nedry, Lewis Dodgson, who is a much slimier bad guy than ever shown on film.  However in the movie, the bad guys are actually Hammond's nephew and other company folks who have wrested control of the company from him and are trying to financially save the company by taking the dinosaurs back to the US.  The plot is so different that it is hard to appreciate, and culminates with the stupid San Diego mayhem that never existed in the book.  The movie is such a letdown after such a great beginning to the series that I can hardly stand it.

That's all I have energy to share now.  Anyone else want to talk about the franchise, or perhaps just about dinosaurs in general?  Note the very flexible title.

I remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park. It was back in July of 1996, in and around my ninth birthday. I may only have watched it on VHS through a crappy SD TV, but Lord, was I FLOORED by the experience. I don't think any other movie, before or since, ever impressed me so profoundly so quickly as that one movie did. From 1996 to 1998, I considered it one of my favourite movies.

Suffice it to say, once I heard about Lost World the next summer, I was brimming with anticipation to see it. I figured if JP was pure awesome, then Lost World would be even purer awesome. Unfortunately, it wasn't. By the time I got around to seeing it, I was completely underwhelmed by how lame everything was; I've never been able to watch the movie the whole way through in one sitting due to how completely unengaging it is.

Saw Jurassic Park III on TV a year or so after it came out. Found it better than the Lost World, but it still didn't live up to the original. I haven't seen it since.

I finally got around to reading the novel a number of years back. It was alright, but this is one of those rare cases where I find the movie vastly superior to the book. I donated my copy to a thrift store afterward.

Tried to read the Lost World novel after that, but I just couldn't get into it. I eventually gave up and, as with the JP novel, donated my copy to a thrift store (Truth be told, this has happened to all of the Crichton books I've bought and tried to read; the guy's style just doesn't do anything for me.).

I have absolutely no desire to see Jurassic World -- none whatsoever. I don't think I need to go into the reasons why; I've stated my grievances with modern Hollywood more than enough times by now.

[JEDIT]

The triceratops is, has always been, and forever shall be, my favourite dinosaur.

Neglify said:

I have a very similar origin-story as you do. I fell in love with JP when it came out, read the book when I was 13, read Lost World as soon as it came out, saw the movie and was disappoint, etc. I actually like the book The Lost World better than Jurassic Park. It's a smaller story, which meant more depth into characters and less sub-plots to keep track of. The first book gets really convoluted and messy, especially in the finale. The movie is far superior in terms of plot and structure.

 While I'm not sure if I like it better or not, The Lost World is surprisingly good for a sequel, and is no less than equal to its predecessor.  It's a shame the movie decided to rewrite so much of the story.  The only fairly close match in scene was the trailer/cliff scene, which is also probably the main scene I like.  Even then, that particular scene upsets me because two characters are so determined to save the baby dinosaur, then the guy who comes to save them and works so hard at it is the one who ends up in a dino belly for all his hard work.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I finally got around to reading the novel a number of years back. It was alright, but this is one of those rare cases where I find the movie vastly superior to the book. I donated my copy to a thrift store afterward.

Tried to read the Lost World novel after that, but I just couldn't get into it. I eventually gave up and, as with the JP novel, donated my copy to a thrift store (Truth be told, this has happened to all of the Crichton books I've bought and tried to read; the guy's style just doesn't do anything for me.).

I actually really like Crichton's writing.  His medical background clearly shows through and probably leads to a dry feeling, not to mention the philosophical ramblings of a major character that expound on Crichton's theories, but I have a medical background and tend to be quite philosphical, so perhaps such things appeal more to me.

I have absolutely no desire to see Jurassic World -- none whatsoever. I don't think I need to go into the reasons why; I've stated my grievances with modern Hollywood more than enough times by now.

It's a shame because this is the first film that I feel captured the magic of the original.  It's not quite as good, but I certainly enjoyed it tremendously.

I actually like philosophy in my fiction -- that's the main draw of Philip K. Dick's works to me, after all. It's the technical details -- or more accurately, the time spent on technical details -- that cause my eyes to glaze over.