Just read the novels (BOOK SPOILERS)
I just finished the lost world novel read the first book a week ago.
And while I think the movies are good the books are just awesome and more Dodgson too
But after reading the books I have just realised how raped the books were by the storywriter for the movies.
Seriously in the lost world movie nothing made sense while in the book it all comes together nicely.
After reading the first JP book I feel that Spielberg is guilty of making JP more kid friendly than Michael Crichton originally intended.
And some adaptations of course have to make sacrifices for the pacing of the movie, but still they could have gone with the novels story which is much stronger without sacrificing too much.
Instead Spielberg uses bits and pieces of the novel in different settings and adding characters that were never in the novel.
Hammond in the movie is way more of a good guy than he is in the novel.
Grant actually likes kids in the novel while in the movie he hates them.
The compys attack of the girl actually happens in the first Jurassic Park book.
Dodgson is given a bigger backstory and so is the company of Biosyn.
And that's just a few of the changes in the first novel the second novel is also filled with huge and by my opinion unnessacary changes.
Kelly is not Malcolms daughter, No Ingen mercenary squad, just two groups of people both very small groups.
One lead by Malcolm and few other people, while the other group is lead by Dodgson (yes they are the bad guys)
David Koepp who wrote the screenplay should not be allowed anywhere near an adoptation ever again.
I will never view the movies in the same way ever again.
And while I think the movies are good the books are just awesome and more Dodgson too
But after reading the books I have just realised how raped the books were by the storywriter for the movies.
Seriously in the lost world movie nothing made sense while in the book it all comes together nicely.
After reading the first JP book I feel that Spielberg is guilty of making JP more kid friendly than Michael Crichton originally intended.
And some adaptations of course have to make sacrifices for the pacing of the movie, but still they could have gone with the novels story which is much stronger without sacrificing too much.
Instead Spielberg uses bits and pieces of the novel in different settings and adding characters that were never in the novel.
Hammond in the movie is way more of a good guy than he is in the novel.
Grant actually likes kids in the novel while in the movie he hates them.
The compys attack of the girl actually happens in the first Jurassic Park book.
Dodgson is given a bigger backstory and so is the company of Biosyn.
And that's just a few of the changes in the first novel the second novel is also filled with huge and by my opinion unnessacary changes.
Kelly is not Malcolms daughter, No Ingen mercenary squad, just two groups of people both very small groups.
One lead by Malcolm and few other people, while the other group is lead by Dodgson (yes they are the bad guys)
David Koepp who wrote the screenplay should not be allowed anywhere near an adoptation ever again.
I will never view the movies in the same way ever again.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
-the movies should have been more scarier just like the books;
-i hate that they killed Muldoon in the movie;
-i don't like the addition of Kelly as Malcolm's daughter;
-I like that Hammond is a nicer person and doesn't die like in the book;
-i think the InGen mercenary squad in TLW is a nice addition but cutting Dodgeson out was a bad call;
-I also liked the changes made to the kids, because Lex's character in the novel was annoying as hell;
-they should have kept the side-story from the beginning of the first book about the Compys;
-the chameleon-like Carnotaurs deserved to be in the movie.
My favorite things about the books were the dinosaurs and I never got why some of the genera were never used in the movies. However, if you look at the movies they practically have the same kind of "antagonist dinos" as were in the books, minus Spino of course.
I think it was a good idea to kill off Hammond in the books. Now I love Hammond in the films, but the story needs a strong antagonist and that antagonist needs to succumb to a poetic death in the story. The movies had Nedry somewhat, but I feel that the story needed that sort of Frankenstein drive. Practically the whole JP staff were killed in the book.
One of the key elements missing from JP3 was exactly the Spielbergian "childlike wonder" towards the dinosaurs. It weakens the appeal of the film for me.
Also, I think there would have been way too many scenes in the movie if they have chosen to adapt the book more literally (a mini-series would solve this though). Spielberg just chose some scenes he liked and structured the story around them.
So while I love the novel, I love the movie even more.
JP2 is a different story, it became radically different. I like the novel better (though I think it was significantly weaker than JP1), but I like the film. It is not an intelligent movie, but hell it is entertaining. So on this, I have conflicting emotions. I would have liked Dodgson as the villain, but I am one of the few who would sorely miss the T. rex in San Diego scenes.
Right there with ya! Maybe not thought provoking, but was still awesome. I'm particularly entertained by that bit where he corners that dorky guy who tries to get in a building and chews him up. The sounds he make were pretty funny.
You mean David Koepp? Yes, that was the screenwriter, who got chomped by a T-rex and then listed in the credits as "Unlucky Bastard".
Man, I need to watch the credits more. I mean I already do more than most people, but I didn't know that. Not to mention, just yesterday I was watching Episode 1 again (cuz I got the saga in HD, yay!) and as I was watching the credits I found out Kiera Knightly was one of Amidala's handmaidens.
A little offtopic but Keira is actually the queen in most of that movie Portman to the left