- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Jurassic Park...About halfway through the book and I'm loving it
Posted on 10/30/13 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 10/30/13 at 5:14 pm
About halfway through the book and I'm loving it. They've just realized the animals are breeding and there are probably 30 raptors running around instead of the eight they though. Of there are spoilers from the book that aren't in the movie it would be appreciated if they were left out of the convo.
Movie, which I like, seems to be relatively true to form.
Overall thoughts on the book?
I bought the second book and was planning on reading it but my buddy told me it was just an entire book of Chricton having a evolution theory rant. That would get old if true...
Book/movie differences:
All the people seemed to be described different from the way they appeared in the book. Grant was a bearded man who actually liked kids, not extremely awkward around them. Gennaro was like 35 and muscular not old and a wuss.
There was a no YOU BRED RAPTORS!!!???? Muldoon seemed to be the only one who even cares that they did so.
Kids ages were reversed.
Didn't think it was possible, but Hammon was even dumber and naive in the book. God he's a goob.
Ed Regis was a pretty main character, so far. He wasn't in the movie was he? Or am I drawing a blank.
I'm done talking.
Movie, which I like, seems to be relatively true to form.
Overall thoughts on the book?
I bought the second book and was planning on reading it but my buddy told me it was just an entire book of Chricton having a evolution theory rant. That would get old if true...
Book/movie differences:
All the people seemed to be described different from the way they appeared in the book. Grant was a bearded man who actually liked kids, not extremely awkward around them. Gennaro was like 35 and muscular not old and a wuss.
There was a no YOU BRED RAPTORS!!!???? Muldoon seemed to be the only one who even cares that they did so.
Kids ages were reversed.
Didn't think it was possible, but Hammon was even dumber and naive in the book. God he's a goob.
Ed Regis was a pretty main character, so far. He wasn't in the movie was he? Or am I drawing a blank.
I'm done talking.
This post was edited on 5/21/17 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 10/30/13 at 5:19 pm to iwyLSUiwy
They combined several characters. Gennero went from the PR guy to the Lawyer.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 5:24 pm to iwyLSUiwy
The Hoover Dam appearing mid-scene as part of the T-Rex exhibit was not in the book.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 6:47 pm to Libertyabides71
Guys guys slow down. I can only read so fast
Posted on 10/30/13 at 6:57 pm to iwyLSUiwy
I had my problems with the movie compared to the book, but I still liked it.
The book was much darker than the movie. There were additional dinosaurs that would've made it much more exciting.
Grant was changed a good bit. The kids' personalities were switched.
I liked the book's version of Hammon. He was a corporate douche rather than the lovable grandpa.
The book is awesome. I do like the movie, but the book is lightyears better.
The book was much darker than the movie. There were additional dinosaurs that would've made it much more exciting.
Grant was changed a good bit. The kids' personalities were switched.
I liked the book's version of Hammon. He was a corporate douche rather than the lovable grandpa.
The book is awesome. I do like the movie, but the book is lightyears better.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 7:08 pm to Scruffy
I'm actually glad I saw the movie first. Makes you appreciate the book a little more. Although reading the Hobbit/LOTR before the movie did the same thing so I don't know.
Did you read The Lost World?
Did you read The Lost World?
Posted on 10/30/13 at 7:55 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:Yea. I'm a huge Crichton fan. The 2nd book isn't bad, but you can tell he didn't want to write it.
Did you read The Lost World?
I don't want to spoil anything since there are differences between Jurassic Park's ending and the movie.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 9:14 pm to Scruffy
frick it. I'd like to hear what you have to say. I
Posted on 10/30/13 at 9:20 pm to iwyLSUiwy
I loved the book, its darker and much better.
I thought Hammond in the book was more "evil" for lack of a better word, vs the movie were he was portrayed as more of a kindly old grandpa that didn't mean any harm.
I thought Hammond in the book was more "evil" for lack of a better word, vs the movie were he was portrayed as more of a kindly old grandpa that didn't mean any harm.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 9:24 pm to iwyLSUiwy
The book was awesome. What was the scientific reason they needed to make the book seem realistic? The book is also spookier.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 9:49 pm to iwyLSUiwy
It was a very good book. Like all of Chrighton's stuff it was kind of light reading but well done and a lot of fun.
Chrighton's knack of using plausible sounding, well reasoned scientific theories behind his sic fi served him well in this one. (though my favorite was probably the giant fax machine like device used for time travel in Timeline)
Don't want to spoil the book so I won't go into plot details. But yeah the book had a lot more in it than the movie, both in terms of details and of different types of dinos. But the movie did a great job of bringing the basic essence to life.
Chrighton's knack of using plausible sounding, well reasoned scientific theories behind his sic fi served him well in this one. (though my favorite was probably the giant fax machine like device used for time travel in Timeline)
Don't want to spoil the book so I won't go into plot details. But yeah the book had a lot more in it than the movie, both in terms of details and of different types of dinos. But the movie did a great job of bringing the basic essence to life.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 9:52 pm to LukeSidewalker
Admittedly I have been a lifelong dinosaur fan so here it goes.
Mainly the biggest thing was the gaps in Dinosaur science between the late 80s and early 90s. Crichton's book was great but it still felt like a good deal of it was 70s dinosaur science without much if any of the Dinosaur renaissance. The 7 year gap between the movie and the book were an eternity in dinosaur science. And having Horner on the movie helped a ton as he was a key figure in the new science.
Not only was having Grant seem a little bit hair brained for the Birds from Dinosaurs theory wrong it was out of place. By the early 90s there were no debates about dinosaur evolution in that basic sense nor were there serious doubts about endothermy (holding an ambient body temp). The people who should have seemed hair brained were the ones opposing Grant's views.
And certainly by the time the movie came out no one in a camp working would have laughed at him like that.
70's dinosaur science tended to under speciate which led to the Velociraptor confusion. 70's dinosaur science referred to Deinonychus antirrhopus as a subspecies of Velociraptor. That led to the Raptors of the novels and movies being forever called Velociraptor in the fact the in movie Genus/Species name was Velociraptor antirrhopus. By the time the movies had came out no one in the Dinosaur community considered the American Dromeosaurs like Deinonychus as close relatives to the Velociraptor. Real Velociraptor are dog sized from Asia. The raptors of the film are sized right just named wrong.
A good deal of the science in the novel was considered the logical next steps when it was released in 1986. By as early as 1993 and even today we realize all of the science used to bring the dinosaurs back to life is completely science fiction. But that isn't how Crichton wrote it. When he first approached Jurassic Park it was considered at least halfway probable if in the distant future. Jurassic Park was his first book that openly expressed it but Congo and Next would reveal more his views. Crichton was as weird as it sounds a "bio conservative" despite being a speculative science writer. He was wary of genetic engineering and tampering with nature as it appears as a regular theme in most if not all of his post Jurassic park work.
Mainly the biggest thing was the gaps in Dinosaur science between the late 80s and early 90s. Crichton's book was great but it still felt like a good deal of it was 70s dinosaur science without much if any of the Dinosaur renaissance. The 7 year gap between the movie and the book were an eternity in dinosaur science. And having Horner on the movie helped a ton as he was a key figure in the new science.
Not only was having Grant seem a little bit hair brained for the Birds from Dinosaurs theory wrong it was out of place. By the early 90s there were no debates about dinosaur evolution in that basic sense nor were there serious doubts about endothermy (holding an ambient body temp). The people who should have seemed hair brained were the ones opposing Grant's views.
And certainly by the time the movie came out no one in a camp working would have laughed at him like that.
70's dinosaur science tended to under speciate which led to the Velociraptor confusion. 70's dinosaur science referred to Deinonychus antirrhopus as a subspecies of Velociraptor. That led to the Raptors of the novels and movies being forever called Velociraptor in the fact the in movie Genus/Species name was Velociraptor antirrhopus. By the time the movies had came out no one in the Dinosaur community considered the American Dromeosaurs like Deinonychus as close relatives to the Velociraptor. Real Velociraptor are dog sized from Asia. The raptors of the film are sized right just named wrong.
A good deal of the science in the novel was considered the logical next steps when it was released in 1986. By as early as 1993 and even today we realize all of the science used to bring the dinosaurs back to life is completely science fiction. But that isn't how Crichton wrote it. When he first approached Jurassic Park it was considered at least halfway probable if in the distant future. Jurassic Park was his first book that openly expressed it but Congo and Next would reveal more his views. Crichton was as weird as it sounds a "bio conservative" despite being a speculative science writer. He was wary of genetic engineering and tampering with nature as it appears as a regular theme in most if not all of his post Jurassic park work.
This post was edited on 10/30/13 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 10/30/13 at 11:25 pm to Libertyabides71
That's some good stuff.
Posted on 10/30/13 at 11:27 pm to LukeSidewalker
Man that's all you got? I throw my A shite and I get a toast gif? Hah jk bud.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:41 pm to iwyLSUiwy
The main thing they changed from the book was the time constraint they were under to get comms back up before the boat with raptor stowaways got to the mainland.
I never understood why they didn't include that in the movie. It added a ton of suspense to the book.
I never understood why they didn't include that in the movie. It added a ton of suspense to the book.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:48 pm to iwyLSUiwy
I saw the movie three times at the theater. Then I read the book. And while the book was good, I didn't feel overawed. I didn't feel like the movie lacked anything. Which is actually rare when comparing movies to books. It's a testament to the greatness of the movie.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 5:42 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Overall thoughts on the book?
First book I ever loved. I think I was in 5th or 6th grade when I read it. Crichton is still one of my favorite authors
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News