Michael Crichton - Jurrasic Park

[Spot]

Hello. I saw Jurassic park a long time ago when it first came out in theatres and just recently again with a friend. I know someone else whos read the book and said it was outstanding 100x better then the movie. Im not major into dinosaurs, science at that matter... but i thought it might be an interesting read... so im asking if it is infact THAT good, and as a side note ive never ready anything by crichton... so im wondering how good his writing style is...

is the book a real page turner, easy read... not really looking for anything with a lot of depth right now.

[jerrymcl89]

Crichton's books are all pretty quick and easy reads. And yes, Jurassic Park is quite good. I'm not sure if it's better than the movies, because there is something to be said for actually seeing dinosaurs, but the book is a good deal more suspenseful, and the ending was softened up somewhat for the movie.

The sequel, however, was a crappy book, and was better as a movie.

As a general rule, Crichton's books are strong from a plot perspective, and full of intriguing tidbits about the subject he's dealing with. His characters tend to be pretty flat, however.

[sschroeder]

I saw Jurassic park a long time ago when it first came out in theatres and just recently again with a friend. I know someone else whos read the book and said it was outstanding 100x better then the movie.

I read the book before the movie was made, so it has been a while, but I think I enjoyed the book thoroughly and more than the movie. That could be because, for me, the book was first.

I've had good experiences with the Crichton I've read, and this should be a decent one if you are trying the author for the first time.

[Parallax48]

Crichton always presents a lot of science in his books, but generally makes it understandable to someone not exactly versed in the subjects. I remember staying up late for several nights the first time I ever read it....that was before the movie though. They don't end exactly the same way, but after having seen the movie you know the broad strokes of how it ends.

[Roquefort Raider]

I *loved* the Jurassic Park novel, and I had started reading it with huge misapprehension (as I didn't much care for the movie).

The action is non-stop, and all the annoying clichés of the film are gone. (No doting grandfather, but rather a cold-hearted investor; no stereotypical obese and clumsy bad guy; characters dying of normal things like scratch-induced infection, etc).

I didn't read the sequel (which is said to be pretty bad) but the original novel is a real page-turner.

[ouiyahtsiouiyah]

Its really good. Jurassic Park 3 is all the stuff they left out of the first movie. Except for that Dinosaur that killed the T Rex

[Sanagi]

I really enjoyed the book, but the movie was good, so I wouldn't say it was a hundred-fold difference.

I wonder if the chaos theory references would seem cheesy if I read it now.

[howyadoin]

I *loved* the Jurassic Park novel, and I had started reading it with huge misapprehension (as I didn't much care for the movie). I liked the movie up till I read the book. It was quite awhile ago now, but it seems to me that what really struck me about the book was how flimsy the plot in the movie was.

[EZMOHR]

I've always said that if Spielberg would've made Jurassic Park the movie like the book, it would've been the greatest movie ever. I read the book when I was a Freshman in High School. I read before I saw the movie. I had chicken pox for like 4 weeks that summer, so I read tons of books that summer. It is still one my 5 favorite books of all time.

[Slappy san]

Hello. I saw Jurassic park a long time ago when it first came out in theatres and just recently again with a friend. I know someone else whos read the book and said it was outstanding 100x better then the movie. Im not major into dinosaurs, science at that matter... but i thought it might be an interesting read... so im asking if it is infact THAT good, and as a side note ive never ready anything by crichton... so im wondering how good his writing style is...

is the book a real page turner, easy read... not really looking for anything with a lot of depth right now.

Book is much better. It's not "kiddiefiied".

[Convoy]

Great book, the sequel I found to be boring though. Congo was a pretty good read, never saw the movie though.

Anyone read "State of Fear"?

[bert]

The book is MUCH better than the film.

the sequel, is quite different than the film (Lost World works great as a film, but as a book, it's very tedious. . . so that explains why so many changes between the filmed version, and the book. Really, the only thing the book has in common w/ the film is the name).

"Congo" is MUCH better as a book. .the film is a big ol turd.

ditto "Sphere", a much better book than that horrid film.

ditto ditto, "Eaters of the Dead" that was done as that film "13th Warrior". . not horrible, but better in book form than film form.

Pretty much my favorite book by him, and one that also was an exellent film, was "the Andromeda Strain"

I never realized he was involved in the film "Westworld". . I've always kind of liked that one.

here's his website: http://www.crichton-official.com/

[Hiromi]

The sequel, however, was a crappy book, and was better as a movie.


Ironically I had the opposite impression.

[Parallax48]

Prey was really good. I got so wrapped up in it, I read it all in an afternoon.

[DonC]

The sequel, however, was a crappy book, and was better as a movie.


I disagree on that one. The novel The Lost World was, to me, much better than the movie. The novel tried to be something different than the first book, while the movie was really just more of the same. However, as has been noted, the only thing they really have in common is the title.


Jurassic Park, the novel, is much better than the movie, but at times Crichton's "morals" tend to overwhelm the story. (The book is basically an anti-cloning morality play wrapped inside a novel about dinosaurs.) However that doesn't become really annoying until The Lost World when a new character seems to only be there to spout out Crichton's views on what killed the dinosaurs.

[jimmyboy]

Its really good. Jurassic Park 3 is all the stuff they left out of the first movie. Except for that Dinosaur that killed the T Rex
I dont' remember much of the book, but I do remember thinking that the first movie was only a small part of the book. The rest they left out.

[Arvandor]

I thought the book was vastly inferior to the film.

In the books, the characters are shallow, two-dimensional caricatures. Hammond in particular is just a stereotypical amoral rich executive. And Ian Malcolm is nothing more than a hollow mouthpiece, a plot device with no personality.
And some really stupid set-pieces that I'm glad were left out of the film.

It took the film to give the characters personality, motivations, and reasons for acting the way they do. And the script was far better written.

[cactusmaac]

I disagree on that one. The novel The Lost World was, to me, much better than the movie. The novel tried to be something different than the first book, while the movie was really just more of the same. However, as has been noted, the only thing they really have in common is the title.


Jurassic Park, the novel, is much better than the movie, but at times Crichton's "morals" tend to overwhelm the story. (The book is basically an anti-cloning morality play wrapped inside a novel about dinosaurs.) However that doesn't become really annoying until The Lost World when a new character seems to only be there to spout out Crichton's views on what killed the dinosaurs.

I wouldn't call it anti-cloning as much as tapping into the same theme that drives a lot of sci-fi: mankind's greed and ambition combined with his scientific and technical aptitude does have a tendency to wreak havoc.

I liked the first Jurassic Park movie but the book had a lot more depth to it. Same goes for the Lost World. Congo and Sphere were both pretty good, Airframe and Full Disclosure were OK but unmemorable. Andromeda Strain is probably the best "virus on a rampage" story I've read. What I like best about Crichton's work is the scientific detail he puts in his stories.

Only book of his I disliked was Timeline which seemed blatantly written as a quick Hollywood cash-in.

[DonC]

I wouldn't call it anti-cloning as much as tapping into the same theme that drives a lot of sci-fi: mankind's greed and ambition combined with his scientific and technical aptitude does have a tendency to wreak havoc.


Well, the two basically go hand-in-hand. The "iteration" chapter headings were Crichton's way of saying when you clone something you never make an exact clone. There will always be some seemingly small differences due to chaos theory. And when you get down to a fifth or sixth generation clone, those "small" differences can get rather big.

[Peter]

Ironically I had the opposite impression.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I received "The Lost World" novel as a present, and I utterly loved it. But I found the movie to be ... awful. Painful, even.

(which was bad enough, but I was such a fan of the original JP movie, and after looking forward to the sequel, the sequel made the original look bad)

I'm a bit worried about reading "Jurassic Park" in its original novel form, though. I might end up not liking the movie anymore, and that would just suck.

[DLFerguson]

Is JURASSIC PARK really anything more than a remake of WESTWORLD?

I'm still trying to figure out what SPHERE and PREY were all about. Those books were so bad I didn't even give them away because I don't dislike anybody that much. And the movie version of SPHERE was plain out baffling.

[EZMOHR]

I thought Sphere was a good book. And I am one of the six people in the free world that thought the movie was good (except for Stone.)

I think a Chrichton book that gets overlooked is Rising Sun. The book was pretty good, but it falls into the catagorey for me at least, as a movie that was better than the book. Just me though.