I thought the book was more of a horror film like Alien s . It seems like Speilberg fell under the old mans spell and wanted to sell the park and merch more than the fear of the genetically enhanced dinos.
It turns out Spielberg was trying to adhere to crichton's original vision of the book. Kid friendly, but crichton's publishers wouldn't buy his manuscript, they wanter more horror elements. Crichton and spielberg were friends, and spielberg got first dibs at jurassic Park's movie adaptation because of commitment to crichton's original work.
In book Arnold talks about that they only need very few people for operating the park because of Nedry's Software. That's why nothing works after the sabotage. Also there's a boat that brought most scientists, etc from the island before the problems. That's why Nedry has to take the long way to the East Dock. In the movie they combined the normal boat with the boat Nedry is supposed to leave on. If I remember correctly the remaining staff on the island gets saved by the military of Costa Rica in the end just like the main cast.
A few details wrong, but that's fine. I don't expect everyone to remember all the details. Hammon's death isn't just him tripping. He gets startled by a recorded trex roar. In the book, before Moldune gets the rocket launcher, he gets alcohol. So not only is he driving around with a rocket launcher, he's also drunk off his bottom. Other than that, a pretty good look at the differences between film and movie. The book is essentially horror with science fiction mixed in. The movie is about Grant learning that kids aren't really that bad, all the while he and everyone else does their best not to get eaten like chumps.
Laura! I just found you through my new tag and am so excited to dig into your work here. This is so timely as I just recently finally read Jurassic Park! I am not all the way through your video yet, but I love this comparison and your style here. Excited to finish later when works slows down. Wonderful job!
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that. And my book vs movie videos are also available in podcast form if that's more convenient! Jurassic Park is such a fantastic book though. I plan on reading the second one next year.
First time on your channel. I will definitely check out some more of these. I liked both the movie and the book equally. Because they are different enough to enjoy as separate stories. Oh and the thing you said about the staff being saved and where are they, that’s something that’s always bothered me in a lot of movies, where once the action begins. The extras and background characters just suddenly disappear. Like the main characters could be in down town New York City but once the action begins, everyone else basically disappears.
When the author wrote the second book he included a line which a character says that “rewrites” or exposes Alan and Ellie’s relationship history. This character states that they were involved with each other at the time of Jurassic Park and have since broken up. Their characters were written as close friends so it’s not really a stretch to change it to romantic involvement but just not mention it.
I appreciate your thorough analysis however at 17:16 you said in the book Muldoon kills a T-Rex and if memory serves correct, Muldoon never actually killed the Rex rather just shot it with a tranquilizer gun that didn't take affect on it until later when it was attacking Tim and Lex behind the waterfall. Also, I think the reason Grant wanted to go count eggs at the nest in the book was because it was already established that dinosaurs "particularly Raptors and Compy's had gotten off the island and knowing how many eggs we're there and how many had hatched would at least give them a ball park estimate of how many Raptors we're out there. Lastly, personally I'm glad Spielberg reworked Hammonds character the way he did. In the book Hammond was so one dimensionally evil that he may as well have been a Disney villain.
For cost saving the Park was designed to be as automated as possible. That’s the main reason many people weren’t there. I think people were also sent home because then they can’t affect or influence what the visitors think during this weekend.
I will also add that the dinosaurs in the novel are far more beatiful description wise and the weird details to them like venom and forked tongues for some are a reminder that they are Frankensteinian critters.
The novel still lacked the aw the movie had though.. the novel is certainly scary though.. the film was scary to.. but novel is definitely more frightening..
The novel is MUCH, MUCH BETTER!!!!!! The scene in the hatchery with Grant poisoning the raptors is easily my favorite scene in any book. The whole raptor chase is much better in the book. The scene of Dr. Wu's death is chilling. And I really think Malcolm should be dead. It was so dramatic
There are a lot of books that are better than the movie. I just have to give it to the movie here because the movie was a masterpiece created by like 3 or 4 separate master crafters including the author of the book. Picture, direction, sound, music, auto erotics. Animatronics, special effects. All coming together perfectly. The book is great but the movie is something else altogether.
In my opinion, I prefer the movie over the novel. While I enjoy reading the novel, I enjoy the visuals of the film more. I enjoy seeing what's going on more than reading about it. Plus, the movie tones down the carnage somewhat. The novel is extremely graphic at times. If what was depicted in the novel had been shown on-screen in the film, it would have easily earned an R rating, if not NC-17! In fact, I've rated both the novel and the film based on the content depicted in each. These ratings are my own opinions because I have a weak stomach and can't handle much blood or gore. Novel Rating: NC-17 Movie Rating: R #JurassicPark
Yeah the book is definitely more gruesome. I'm a lightweight myself when it comes to gore in movies, but it's all relative because I didn't think the movie was too bad lol. Thanks for commenting!
@@WhytheBookWins You're welcome. I can't decide which part of the novel was the most graphic since there are several graphic moments depicted. Here are a few really graphic moments that I remember from the novel. * The boy who was mauled by something that was claimed to be a garden hoe. But, the boy muttered something in Spanish: "Lo So Raptor"...which I assumed he was trying to say "Velociraptor". What really hit me hard was when Bobbie (Roberta) tried to save the boy only for him to vomit blood! * Nedry's death. When the Dilophosaurus attacked and killed him in the novel, his guts fell out and his head was eaten. This was only vaguely implied in the film when we see it attack him in the jeep. * Timmy heaved when the T-Rex threw the car off the paddock. In fact, this was depicted in both versions. Timmy even told Grant in the film, "I threw up." I think there were other graphic moments, but I can't seem to remember them at this time. I think Lex stepped on someone's ear at one point, but there didn't seem to be anything else involved. That moment was a little icky, but it wasn't graphic or gory. I felt bad for the T-Rex when it was knocked out by Muldoon's dart in the novel. That was not in the film, but it was in the sequel (except it was from Roland instead of Muldoon). Timmy really felt for the animal, but Lex was glad it was shot. I believe that Lex wanted the T-Rex to die while Tim clearly did not. Tim: "It's not his fault." Lex: "Oh, sure! He practically ate us, and it's not his fault." Tim: "He's a carnivore. He was just doing what he does." Lex: "You wouldn't say that if you were in his stomach now."
@@WhytheBookWins I think for me the movies wins only because of the line "spared no expense"!! I don't remember reading that line once in the books, huge problem imo! (Jk lol)
As much as I love the book, I think the movie did the characters better. The characters in the book were pretty bland and I couldn't care less if they lived or died (except for Muldoon, I really liked him). In the movie, pn the other hand, were more relatable and better developped. You actually care about them. And Lex is a really obnoxious little shit in the book, too.
Unless I'm mistaken, very little cgi was used. Most of the dinosaurs were done practically. Cgi was used to enhance them and do scenes that the puppets couldn't do.
Eaters of the Dead, aka 13th Warrior was another great book to movie with very few changes. Also Sphere. I do not recommend Congo as a movie. The book is completely different, and it's more about politics than the actual animals.
I just seen Jurassic World Dominion part of the first chapter of the Bowman girl being attacked that her that was moved to the Lost World Jurassic Park. Ed Regis doesn’t exist at all in the movie his characteristics were given to Gerrano, and also Henry Wu in the movies becomes a villain especially because of the events of Jurassic World & Fallen Kingdom. The aviary was saved for Jurassic Park III. I’m glad some of these deaths were cut from the film if they were added to the film it would had been rated R.
As a fan of The Jurassic Park Series I prefer the movie versions especially the movie version of the grandpa. He's better than his evil villain book counterpart I never even knew there was a book series but to be fair the characters including the Dinosaurs in the movie are better.
Thank you! This was probably my 5th episode ever lol, I agree i have definitely improved 😊 Some of these older episodes I would like to cover all over again because I would do better now than I did back then.
Both the book & the movie were excellent masterpieces in my judgment, & they were good for different reasons. The book is less kid friendly because it focuses on the science & technical subject matter much more, with less action, while the movie is all about the dinosaurs with a lot of CGI plus action in it. It's good that the book depicts Hammond as a villain, & the movie depicts him as a likable sweet old man & genuine protagonist hero like Grant & Dr. Malcom's characters are. You mentioned the change in the character as an example of good storytelling, to me Grant becoming a kid fan in the movie was irrelevant, but Hammond learning from the errors he made in creating the park was the better character change. That difference in both the book and film worked for me. What was not needed in the movie was the kiddie stuff regarding Grant's character, the book depicted him better. I also did not care for nor need a romance between him & the woman Dr. Saddler, the book did that part better too it was unnecessary. The main characters that matter to me in both the book & movie are Hammond & Dr. Malcom, in fact, the actors were perfect for the movie & their arch are the main point of the movie & the book whereas the other characters are just there to fight off dinosaurs & survive. Any actor could have played those roles for Grant & a few others. This franchise is the best description of how a book, & movie, or tv show can both be gold standard winners whereas others had failed in their adaptation, or in some rare cases (like the Man in the High Castle) the book is an inferior work to the tv show/movie.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Funny enough, the aviary and river scenes are sort of adapted into the third Jurassic Park movie. Although the T-Rex is replaced by a Spinosaurus.
I thought the book was more of a horror film like Alien s . It seems like Speilberg fell under the old mans spell and wanted to sell the park and merch more than the fear of the genetically enhanced dinos.
yeah agreed
It turns out Spielberg was trying to adhere to crichton's original vision of the book. Kid friendly, but crichton's publishers wouldn't buy his manuscript, they wanter more horror elements. Crichton and spielberg were friends, and spielberg got first dibs at jurassic Park's movie adaptation because of commitment to crichton's original work.
Most people agree that, like Jaws, the film is the superior version.
The dinosaur that attacked the girl on the beach in the beginning of the novel wasn't a young raptor, it was a compsognathus.
@@kawadashogo8258 Procompsognathus actually. It is a Triassic species while the compsognathus is from the Jurassic.
Michael Crichton died on November 4, 2008, less than two weeks after his 66th birthday, from lymphoma. RIP.
There's only one sequel book, but a whole franchise for the films.
In book Arnold talks about that they only need very few people for operating the park because of Nedry's Software. That's why nothing works after the sabotage. Also there's a boat that brought most scientists, etc from the island before the problems. That's why Nedry has to take the long way to the East Dock. In the movie they combined the normal boat with the boat Nedry is supposed to leave on.
If I remember correctly the remaining staff on the island gets saved by the military of Costa Rica in the end just like the main cast.
I think, that the boat bringing people from the island is only a thing in the movie. The scientists in the novel seem to just disappear.
A few details wrong, but that's fine. I don't expect everyone to remember all the details. Hammon's death isn't just him tripping. He gets startled by a recorded trex roar.
In the book, before Moldune gets the rocket launcher, he gets alcohol. So not only is he driving around with a rocket launcher, he's also drunk off his bottom.
Other than that, a pretty good look at the differences between film and movie. The book is essentially horror with science fiction mixed in. The movie is about Grant learning that kids aren't really that bad, all the while he and everyone else does their best not to get eaten like chumps.
Laura! I just found you through my new tag and am so excited to dig into your work here. This is so timely as I just recently finally read Jurassic Park! I am not all the way through your video yet, but I love this comparison and your style here. Excited to finish later when works slows down. Wonderful job!
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that. And my book vs movie videos are also available in podcast form if that's more convenient!
Jurassic Park is such a fantastic book though. I plan on reading the second one next year.
First time on your channel. I will definitely check out some more of these. I liked both the movie and the book equally. Because they are different enough to enjoy as separate stories. Oh and the thing you said about the staff being saved and where are they, that’s something that’s always bothered me in a lot of movies, where once the action begins. The extras and background characters just suddenly disappear. Like the main characters could be in down town New York City but once the action begins, everyone else basically disappears.
Hope you are enjoying the channel! Both book and movie are so good with this one!
When the author wrote the second book he included a line which a character says that “rewrites” or exposes Alan and Ellie’s relationship history. This character states that they were involved with each other at the time of Jurassic Park and have since broken up. Their characters were written as close friends so it’s not really a stretch to change it to romantic involvement but just not mention it.
I appreciate your thorough analysis however at 17:16 you said in the book Muldoon kills a T-Rex and if memory serves correct, Muldoon never actually killed the Rex rather just shot it with a tranquilizer gun that didn't take affect on it until later when it was attacking Tim and Lex behind the waterfall. Also, I think the reason Grant wanted to go count eggs at the nest in the book was because it was already established that dinosaurs "particularly Raptors and Compy's had gotten off the island and knowing how many eggs we're there and how many had hatched would at least give them a ball park estimate of how many Raptors we're out there.
Lastly, personally I'm glad Spielberg reworked Hammonds character the way he did. In the book Hammond was so one dimensionally evil that he may as well have been a Disney villain.
For cost saving the Park was designed to be as automated as possible. That’s the main reason many people weren’t there. I think people were also sent home because then they can’t affect or influence what the visitors think during this weekend.
I will also add that the dinosaurs in the novel are far more beatiful description wise and the weird details to them like venom and forked tongues for some are a reminder that they are Frankensteinian critters.
The movie was great but the novel was extremely good and had more horror
Agreed
@@WhytheBookWins i Hate Compys
The novel still lacked the aw the movie had though.. the novel is certainly scary though.. the film was scary to.. but novel is definitely more frightening..
The movie gave a vague explanation of where the rest of the workers went with the emergency boat that Nedry was trying to get to.
The novel is MUCH, MUCH BETTER!!!!!! The scene in the hatchery with Grant poisoning the raptors is easily my favorite scene in any book. The whole raptor chase is much better in the book. The scene of Dr. Wu's death is chilling. And I really think Malcolm should be dead. It was so dramatic
Ian Malcolm actually survived and the sequel has him in a leading a role 👀
I covered the sequel in January and was so surprised he was in the book lol
@@WhytheBookWinsif I remember correctly, Malcolm was retconed into the second book because Spielberg asked Crichton to write a sequel.
@@amandylyn3881 Yeah but it doesn't dissuade the fact he lived
Just started the book last night. So far so good.
Nice! I love the first book.
There are a lot of books that are better than the movie. I just have to give it to the movie here because the movie was a masterpiece created by like 3 or 4 separate master crafters including the author of the book. Picture, direction, sound, music, auto erotics. Animatronics, special effects. All coming together perfectly. The book is great but the movie is something else altogether.
Yeah it was a huge moment in film history that is still incredible today!
In my opinion, I prefer the movie over the novel. While I enjoy reading the novel, I enjoy the visuals of the film more. I enjoy seeing what's going on more than reading about it. Plus, the movie tones down the carnage somewhat. The novel is extremely graphic at times. If what was depicted in the novel had been shown on-screen in the film, it would have easily earned an R rating, if not NC-17! In fact, I've rated both the novel and the film based on the content depicted in each. These ratings are my own opinions because I have a weak stomach and can't handle much blood or gore.
Novel Rating: NC-17
Movie Rating: R
#JurassicPark
Yeah the book is definitely more gruesome. I'm a lightweight myself when it comes to gore in movies, but it's all relative because I didn't think the movie was too bad lol. Thanks for commenting!
@@WhytheBookWins You're welcome.
I can't decide which part of the novel was the most graphic since there are several graphic moments depicted. Here are a few really graphic moments that I remember from the novel.
* The boy who was mauled by something that was claimed to be a garden hoe. But, the boy muttered something in Spanish: "Lo So Raptor"...which I assumed he was trying to say "Velociraptor". What really hit me hard was when Bobbie (Roberta) tried to save the boy only for him to vomit blood!
* Nedry's death. When the Dilophosaurus attacked and killed him in the novel, his guts fell out and his head was eaten. This was only vaguely implied in the film when we see it attack him in the jeep.
* Timmy heaved when the T-Rex threw the car off the paddock. In fact, this was depicted in both versions. Timmy even told Grant in the film, "I threw up."
I think there were other graphic moments, but I can't seem to remember them at this time. I think Lex stepped on someone's ear at one point, but there didn't seem to be anything else involved. That moment was a little icky, but it wasn't graphic or gory.
I felt bad for the T-Rex when it was knocked out by Muldoon's dart in the novel. That was not in the film, but it was in the sequel (except it was from Roland instead of Muldoon). Timmy really felt for the animal, but Lex was glad it was shot. I believe that Lex wanted the T-Rex to die while Tim clearly did not.
Tim: "It's not his fault."
Lex: "Oh, sure! He practically ate us, and it's not his fault."
Tim: "He's a carnivore. He was just doing what he does."
Lex: "You wouldn't say that if you were in his stomach now."
Jurassic Park is my favourite book of all time.
Much as I love the film I wish there was a more faithful adaptation.
Yeah this book is so amazing! I love the movie as well, but the book wins for sure
@@WhytheBookWins I think for me the movies wins only because of the line "spared no expense"!! I don't remember reading that line once in the books, huge problem imo! (Jk lol)
@@mortalhordewarrior9285 that line is actually spoken in the book; though not by Hammond.
As much as I love the book, I think the movie did the characters better. The characters in the book were pretty bland and I couldn't care less if they lived or died (except for Muldoon, I really liked him). In the movie, pn the other hand, were more relatable and better developped. You actually care about them. And Lex is a really obnoxious little shit in the book, too.
Unless I'm mistaken, very little cgi was used. Most of the dinosaurs were done practically. Cgi was used to enhance them and do scenes that the puppets couldn't do.
Please do The Lost World next is the sequel to Jurassic Park novel please
I just bought the lost world! Planning on covering it sometime early next year (February or March)
Just posted The Lost World!
“Short live Lex!”😂
Eaters of the Dead, aka 13th Warrior was another great book to movie with very few changes. Also Sphere. I do not recommend Congo as a movie. The book is completely different, and it's more about politics than the actual animals.
I love both but the novel is more of a cautionary tale of genetic engineering than the film.
I just seen Jurassic World Dominion part of the first chapter of the Bowman girl being attacked that her that was moved to the Lost World Jurassic Park. Ed Regis doesn’t exist at all in the movie his characteristics were given to Gerrano, and also Henry Wu in the movies becomes a villain especially because of the events of Jurassic World & Fallen Kingdom. The aviary was saved for Jurassic Park III. I’m glad some of these deaths were cut from the film if they were added to the film it would had been rated R.
As a fan of The Jurassic Park Series I prefer the movie versions especially the movie version of the grandpa. He's better than his evil villain book counterpart
I never even knew there was a book series but to be fair the characters including the Dinosaurs in the movie are better.
LOL! Wanting a little girl to be killed off! You are heartless, but hey, it's sometimes warranted!
tysm you just helped me allot with my school presentation
Please take this as a compliment, but listening to this 2-year-old podcast showed me how much you have improved in your representation.
Thank you! This was probably my 5th episode ever lol, I agree i have definitely improved 😊 Some of these older episodes I would like to cover all over again because I would do better now than I did back then.
Great video thanks!
Both the book & the movie were excellent masterpieces in my judgment, & they were good for different reasons. The book is less kid friendly because it focuses on the science & technical subject matter much more, with less action, while the movie is all about the dinosaurs with a lot of CGI plus action in it. It's good that the book depicts Hammond as a villain, & the movie depicts him as a likable sweet old man & genuine protagonist hero like Grant & Dr. Malcom's characters are. You mentioned the change in the character as an example of good storytelling, to me Grant becoming a kid fan in the movie was irrelevant, but Hammond learning from the errors he made in creating the park was the better character change. That difference in both the book and film worked for me. What was not needed in the movie was the kiddie stuff regarding Grant's character, the book depicted him better. I also did not care for nor need a romance between him & the woman Dr. Saddler, the book did that part better too it was unnecessary. The main characters that matter to me in both the book & movie are Hammond & Dr. Malcom, in fact, the actors were perfect for the movie & their arch are the main point of the movie & the book whereas the other characters are just there to fight off dinosaurs & survive. Any actor could have played those roles for Grant & a few others. This franchise is the best description of how a book, & movie, or tv show can both be gold standard winners whereas others had failed in their adaptation, or in some rare cases (like the Man in the High Castle) the book is an inferior work to the tv show/movie.
Very well put! Thanks for commenting 😁
@@WhytheBookWins Excellent RUclips channel & great review input.
The Jurassic Park movie is better than the book
Lol... A construction attack?? Now The OSHA book sounds more interesting.
The novel. The movie is nice but more of an entrée while the book is the full course...
Did you say you wish one of the children would've been eaten? 😮
Why movie always win is the fact that i can watch it and dont have to read it
Movies definitely have a wider appeal!
You must be young if you saw the film for the first time in 2011!
I tried to reading the book before I saw the movie, but I could not get past the science section in the book.
Interesting, I loved the first book but the second book he definitely goes on these science tangents I was bored by.
@@WhytheBookWins When I watched the movie, I was surprised to find Jeff G. playing Malcolm, I wanted Malcolm to survive because I like Jeff G.