Jurassic Park
So I recently took it upon myself to read Jurassic Park and then the sequel, The Lost World and I utterly loved both of them.
I ADORED the first one. It was written with so much intelligence and thought. It wasn't the blockbuster people know it as but rather a statement about science and progress and people's true motives. It gets it's blockbuster reputation because of the movies..................which is what I'm here to rant about.
For the first movie I understand why they might have changed things up a little bit. They made the ending happier, they changed around who died, cut and added scenes to their discretion. I understand because some things just work better in books and don't translate well to movies. But at least the first movie stuck to the plot line of the first book.......the second movie on the other hand.......
Did they even consult the author before ignoring everything that Crichton wrote? The plot lines are completely different:
1) Book: 10 years after Jurassic Park. A fanatic/scientist Dr. Richard Levine seeks out Dr. Ian Malcolm (from the first book) and together they learn that InGEN (the company that made Jurassic Park) had another island where they let Dinosaurs roam free to try and see what diseases they would catch or behavioral problems that would develop so that they could fix them for the animals that went into the park. Levine and Malcom plan to go there but Levine jumps the gun early and goes there by himself. Now it's a rescue mission to save Levine and get back to the mainland alive. Meanwhile, competitors with InGEN get word of this island and send men to steal eggs of the dinosaurs so that they can get the secrets to their DNA and make some dinosaurs for themselves. They are the bad guys.
2) Movie: The second island is another attempt at Jurassic park and the same loony bastard from the first book, Hammond, wants it checked out. He calls in Dr. Iam Malcom and wants him to lead a crew there. Turns out he already sent Ian's girlfriend there so now it becomes a rescue mission to get her back. Turns out that the company thinks that Hammond is batshit insane so his obnoxious nephew takes over. He wants to build a zoo of dinosaurs back in the mainland and so flies out to collect species for the zoo. He is accompanied by a very large group of hunters. One in particular who is obsessed with hunting a T-Rex for himself.
I purposely left out the endings so there are no spoilers here for people, but just from a short synopsis of the plot.....can't you see that they are nothing at all alike?
It really bothers me when films think they have the "artistic right" to change the book in any way they see fit. SO THIS REALLY BUGS THE SHIT OUT OF ME. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THEIR BOOK INTO A MOVIE, WITH THE SAME NAME, FOLLOW THEY'RE FUCKING PLOT......THEY WROTE IT THAT WAY FOR A REASON!
End of rant.
I ADORED the first one. It was written with so much intelligence and thought. It wasn't the blockbuster people know it as but rather a statement about science and progress and people's true motives. It gets it's blockbuster reputation because of the movies..................which is what I'm here to rant about.
For the first movie I understand why they might have changed things up a little bit. They made the ending happier, they changed around who died, cut and added scenes to their discretion. I understand because some things just work better in books and don't translate well to movies. But at least the first movie stuck to the plot line of the first book.......the second movie on the other hand.......
Did they even consult the author before ignoring everything that Crichton wrote? The plot lines are completely different:
1) Book: 10 years after Jurassic Park. A fanatic/scientist Dr. Richard Levine seeks out Dr. Ian Malcolm (from the first book) and together they learn that InGEN (the company that made Jurassic Park) had another island where they let Dinosaurs roam free to try and see what diseases they would catch or behavioral problems that would develop so that they could fix them for the animals that went into the park. Levine and Malcom plan to go there but Levine jumps the gun early and goes there by himself. Now it's a rescue mission to save Levine and get back to the mainland alive. Meanwhile, competitors with InGEN get word of this island and send men to steal eggs of the dinosaurs so that they can get the secrets to their DNA and make some dinosaurs for themselves. They are the bad guys.
2) Movie: The second island is another attempt at Jurassic park and the same loony bastard from the first book, Hammond, wants it checked out. He calls in Dr. Iam Malcom and wants him to lead a crew there. Turns out he already sent Ian's girlfriend there so now it becomes a rescue mission to get her back. Turns out that the company thinks that Hammond is batshit insane so his obnoxious nephew takes over. He wants to build a zoo of dinosaurs back in the mainland and so flies out to collect species for the zoo. He is accompanied by a very large group of hunters. One in particular who is obsessed with hunting a T-Rex for himself.
I purposely left out the endings so there are no spoilers here for people, but just from a short synopsis of the plot.....can't you see that they are nothing at all alike?
It really bothers me when films think they have the "artistic right" to change the book in any way they see fit. SO THIS REALLY BUGS THE SHIT OUT OF ME. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THEIR BOOK INTO A MOVIE, WITH THE SAME NAME, FOLLOW THEY'RE FUCKING PLOT......THEY WROTE IT THAT WAY FOR A REASON!
End of rant.