Michael Crichton = Jules Verne
At first glance, Crichton's science fiction might seem more alarmist than Verne's, but we should remember that science in Verne is often a neutral force used for not-the-best purposes. (Remember what Malcom says in Jurassic Park: genetically recreated condors > recreated dinosaurs. So it's not that science is awful, it's that people don't always use it well. It's similar in Verne: that submarine and that flying airship are pretty nice--if only people stopped using them for piracy!)
Structurally speaking, both authors tend to stick with contemporary settings with one slightly-advanced new thing that tends to get ejected or contained by the end of the story.
Of course, in both cases, neither outright destroyed their wonderful new thing--the dinosaurs still exist, the Nautilus may have survived. Perhaps that might be to allow the possibility of wonder to go on, but it could also be to allow them to revisit those proven money-makers--both Verne and Crichton being (very successful) professional writers.
Structurally speaking, both authors tend to stick with contemporary settings with one slightly-advanced new thing that tends to get ejected or contained by the end of the story.
Of course, in both cases, neither outright destroyed their wonderful new thing--the dinosaurs still exist, the Nautilus may have survived. Perhaps that might be to allow the possibility of wonder to go on, but it could also be to allow them to revisit those proven money-makers--both Verne and Crichton being (very successful) professional writers.