Jurassic Park, Lost in Adaptation ~ The Dom
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 фев 2015
- Ever wondered what was left out of an adventure 65 million years in the making? The Dom has genuine trouble deciding if this classic film is lost in adaptation.
Shamelessly reusing clips I spat out months ago ^_^
Edit 1: Whoops, I called Dr Sattler a palaeontologist when she's actually a Paleobotanist. YES IT MATTERS!!
Edit 2: So it's been brought to my attention that I've been pronouncing Crichton wrong. Curse you dyslexia, you make a fool of me again.
Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.com/DomSmith?ty=h
Dom on Facebook: The-Dom-1384...
Dom on Twitter: / dominic__noble
Buy Lost in Adaptation Teeshirts: www.teepublic.com/user/the_dom
Contact me: lostinadaptationrequests@gmail.com
Intro music by: / djilneige
Royalty Free Music: incompetech.com/
Mail stuff to Dom:
225 Simi Village Dr
PO Box 941750
Simi Valley, CA
93094 
Кино
Fun fact, Malcolm died in the first book, but in the sequel they pull a "the rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." So, yeah, Crichton changed his mind a bit, didn't he?
@Michael Johnson:
Haha it's true! After I'd read and very much enjoyed _Jurassic Park_ , in which Malcolm really did totally die from injuries sustained being chewed up by a t-rex, I started reading _The Lost World_ . But when I read right at the start that Malcolm wasn't dead, saying the otherwise excellent line "rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated," I stopped reading that one hehehehehe
I actually enjoyed the novel of "The Lost World," probably more than I liked the "Jurassic Park" novel. Yes, the "I'm actually not dead" line did annoy me but I liked the characters, especially Sarah (who is leagues better than her movie counterpart).
@Jennifer Bell:
"I liked the characters, especially Sarah (who is leagues better than her movie counterpart)."
Heh, I'd hope so! In _The Lost World: Jurassic Park_ the film, despite being played by the lovely and otherwise awesomely excellent Julianne Moore (an actress that doesn't actually write the movie's script, mind you), that Sarah character lady, supposedly an expert in her field, not once but TWICE screws around with some dinos' babies: First, the youngling of a stegosaurus, in which she's lucky to have not been killed to death via a huge skewering and impaling { ruclips.net/video/UFmwfgPlqxg/видео.htmlm30s }, and then secondly even though she did that first, she does it AGAIN later in the film with a baby t-rex, dear God, NO! { ruclips.net/video/CYGtLUZg1xA/видео.html immediately followed by all this ruclips.net/video/LpxwR_9EhlY/видео.html and then this too ruclips.net/video/mZ2kxdQf3t0/видео.html } Heh, some expert! What an idiot! Eeh, it doesn't take an expert to grasp quite clearly that wow, what an awfully horrible idea of a really stupid thing to do, and times 2, goddamnit!
Hehe yeah, I'd sure hope that Sarah in the book was a much better expert than that! hehehehehe
The Most Erudite Among Us
Oh, believe me, film Sarah is nothing short of an incompetent idiot, whether for plot convenience and/or bad writing. I'll admit it's been a while since I've read Lost World, but how book Sarah deals with a rich douche bag that betrays them is one of the most kickass things I've read from a female character. Like, eff off Katniss Everdeen, you're a cotton ball in comparison.
Um Crichton didint exactly change his mind. He had absolutely no plans to continue Jurassic park. Didn't want to. Fans kept pressuring him and huranging him for a sequel, so he gave in. He decided that he had to have Malcolm back for it to work.
That "man who doesn't like children" is Spielberg's thing. He has/had extreme daddy issues. A lot of his early films involved men/father figures running away from their families/responsibilities.
Zander Newson so THAT'S why he adapted ready player one! It met all hi criteria!
omfg why is Little Foot my first thought.
SgtBaker16 yikes
@SgtBaker16 Like father, like son I guess?
Like abused kids who grow up to be abusive parents.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a perfect example
I'm beginning to find it slightly intimidating/surreal when someone who has way more subscribers than me subscribes. I'm like: Whatup person who's clearly way more talented than me.... hows it hanging?
I loved the Jabu Jabu reference from Ocarina of Time at 0:34
That was a fish though why not dodongos cavern
@@willpell6396 because those were fossils, not living tissues. It wouldn't have looked right with the opening bit.
Talent should not be judged by number of subscribers. There are great tiny channels, and awful big ones.
6:59 In the novel, it’s implied that reason the T-Rex couldn’t see Grant was because of InGen using amphibians DNA to fill in the gaps, as many amphibians cannot see standstill objects particularly well when compared to moving objects.
Matter of fact, the book version of The Lost World actually retcons the whole “T-Rexes can’t see movement” thing. At one point, one the characters states that Grant proposed a new theory that T-Rexes can see normally and the reason Rexy couldn’t see him was because of the intense rainstorm throwing off her vision. This retcon comes into play later in the book when Dodgsen and his crew try to steal some T-Rex eggs, which ends up backfiring horribly.
Of course, the meta reason being that Crichton had to pull an excuse for his protagonist to survive out of his ass since a T-Rex would’ve easily munched Grant in that scene 🤣
Another cool part of the book left out is Sattler, Grant, Muldoon, and Gennaro going into an underground nest of Raptors by putting a radio collar on a baby raptor from the wild then releasing it so they can follow it to the nest to count them to see how many hatched in the wild and are roaming free. I feel like that kind of scene could've been very tense and terrifying.
It's a couple years late, but I have one thing to add. The difference between book and film is a subtle but significant one. The book's overall tone was man vs machine. The dinosaurs were a danger, but technology was the true villain. It gave Ingen a smug (and ultimately false) sense of security. The dinos breeding, the computers failing, every contingency failing. That was technology failing men who felt far too clever to ever think twice. The movie was clearly man vs nature. The dinos are the bad guys start to finish. This was a typical monster movie given a Spielberg mirror shine. But the tone in both is equally compelling. I'd recommend experiencing both and making your own call.
I have to disagree slightly. yes, the systems failed but it was not their fault, really. It was the humans who did not use them correctly. Spoiler for the book: humans asked the system to count until the maximum quantitiy of dinosours was reached and not further. humans did not interpret the diagrams correctly, humans forgot that the park was running on emergency power only. It was the humans' failure to operate technology succesfully and interpret the data they got from the computers that led to their downfall. not so much the failure of machines but the incompetence of the people using them.
@@cheshirecat1611 it was also nedry who just willingly shut it all down. He build the system so that he always had a backdoor oppertunity if everything would go ruckus. Of course in this case it was the other way around so that he could use it to get his job done
Along with what the others said, Jurassic Park is definitely not a monster movie. One of the main points of it is that the Dinosaurs are just animals, doing what they can to survive in the new world they've been thrust into. Hell, the second movie is even your typical "environment and animals good" movie just with dinosaurs. It's as much a monster movie as, say, Life of Pi is.
I heard the audiobook version of Jurassic Park, and the Dom's impression of the girl at 5:06 minutes is EXACTLY the way the voice actor played her.
The Dom: "It gets dark...really dark."
me: *see animation of velocaraptor in maternity ward*
also me: "What?"
The Dom: "Yeah."
me: "WHAT?!"
The Dom: "YEAH."
I want to read the book just to know HOW dark it gets.
@@sentientdumpstersludge this happens in the first pages of the book. I recommend reading, bc it is a hell of a good Sci-fi book
Aka they eat the babies if you were wondering
I just bought the audio book and was feeding my four month old when I heard that part...
Edit: yes, I had to put now the book for a bit hug snuggle my child
It gets "compys eating the face of living baby" dark, just search up how nedry dies in the book
Actually, I looked this up a while ago. It's not that they don't see things that don't move - in fact, they do see stationary objects, they just ignore them because somewhere in the brain, movement is associated with being alive. So, if something doesn't move, they assume it's not alive and ignore it.
That's how frogs work and it was once thought that dinosaurs might work the same way, though this has since been dropped as an accepted theory (I don't remember if it was actually disproven somehow, or if it was just decided it doesn't make sense). Crichton included in the first book because it was still an accepted possible theory, but later retconned it in the sequel to just being an accident that sometimes occurred because they mixed frog DNA into the dinosaurs after the theory was discredited.
He also retconned Ian Malcolm's death, which I feel was a mistake, since Ian was only written in because Chaos theory had just started to become widely accepted in mainstream science and Crichton was looking for an excuse to talk about it. Probably should have waited until he had an idea that was more appropriate for chaos theory to include a character like Malcolm.
didn't he only do that because the actor that portrayed the character was really well received by the audience
You should do Holes next! That movie and that book is one of my favorites.
InkHeart17 That's why I want his to discuss it! It's the perfect adaptation! He would be able to make great comparisons to other works, and would be able to make basically a step-by-step guide on how to perfectly adapt
Yes please!!!!
Kelefreak He should review Richard Kelly's draft of the script.
I agree! Yes! :D
Yeah... The spotted lizards in the movie absolutely TERRIFIED me as a kid. Also, there were a LOT of dark elements in the story.
Case In Point: The nail polish made from rattlesnake venom (I think).
I think the Dr Grant not liking kids change was to give him an arc outside of trying to survive.
From what I've seen in interviews with Crichton and Spielberg the pair were working on another project, a hospital movie I believe, and when they reached a spot of a writers block Spielberg asked Crichton what he was working on novel wise. Crichton stated he was working on a dinosaur cloning novel and very quickly thereafter they started working on the screenplay before the novel was even finished being written. Thus all the differences.
i feel bad for you, you got stuck inside jabu-jabu
The book ending its all the funnier when you consider Costa Rica doesnt even has a military.
Akron162 In The Lost World novel, the military did exterminate some of the dinosaurs on the mainland while the other ones hide in the wild.
OOOH, do "The Lost World" (the sequel).
Also, gripe here: It is CRY-ton, not Kris-ton
Yep, had to pause it there myself just make this gripe. If you're going to bother to review the author's work, might as well bother to say his name right....
I'm actually taking one of his books right now that is fucking phenomenal! Its called Prey, and is all about nanomachines that evolve autonomous control and learn how to reproduce on their own. Needs to be a movie.
prey was chrightens last good book. my bigest gripe with jarasic park was how badly they fucked muldoon.
i thought it was cre ton
Meh. He's British. They pronounce things differently.
It seemed in the book Gennaro didn't want Lex and Tim at the park at all, worried for their safety.
Pretty sure he started shouting at Hammond immediately for it because he was being frivolous about what was supposed to be a serious investigation
IIRC, Hammond deliberately brought them to try and persuade Gennaro to not shut down the park. It's not like he wanted his grandkids around, especially with how he curses them later. =P
If you were eaten head-first, how did your pants get pulled back up?
asking the real questions.
Maybe the t-rex is just too polite.
British propriety, sir! Nothing less than the dignity of great Albion!
Gotta have some fibers with the meat.
But Dom certainly did. Which is what this is about.
**Jarassic Park theme starts playing**
Me: **breaks into a trance while mindlessly singing humming along with it**
Here's a fun fact, the author actually wanted to write a children's book featuring dinosaurs with the events of the book being seen through the eyes of a child, but the publishers strong armed him into making it more horror themed hence why it went so dark so fast.
I think that's why the film is so changed to be seen more by everybody including children, where as if they kept the books stuff only adults could see it.
I do prefer the book over the movie, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie is still on of the best ever made.
Muldoon blowing up raptors with a fucking rocket launcher is something I would love to see, but then we wouldn't have that awesome "clever girl" quote.
I adore the movie, but the book was extremely different with more characters with different personalities, doing different things in different places. There are also more dinosaurs in the book, more stakes (with the ticking time bomb) and the Trex actually chases Grant and the kids THROUGHOUT THE BOOK, including in the water like a gigantic crocodile and that cave behind the waterfall scene with the tongue looking for them aaaaarghhhhhh SO INTENSE. The book was much more scientific too and Malcolm was even more present, thus, more awesomess.
Honestly, I find the film's T. rex more believable in that regard. Why on Earth would she be wasting valuable energy hunting three scrawny little humans so relentlessly when she has plenty of meaty, meaty dinosaurs to eat all over the park? To quote TV Tropes, it's like passing up a full, free turkey dinner to run a mile for some chicken mcnuggets.
@@CJCroen1393 She has a gourmet's tastebuds in the book XD
yer right which i think was a fuckup on CHRICHTON's part in the book he makes a big deal about t-rex and other dinos being the ancestors of birds and not reptiles then goes on to describe t-rex as having all these reptile characteristics. awesome book but i think he kind of dropped the ball on that one. also in the book malcolm is way more arrogant, obnoxious and irritating in the movie he's much funnier and more amusing. another thing i wondered when i read the book back in the 90's why did they even invite a mathmetician when there were so many dino and wildlife experts they could've had.
so scientific that Micheal repeatedly used malcom as his self insert to play down climate change and push anti-intellectualism
@@reggiefreeborn2143 huh
white guy 1
- lived in the book
- died in the film
white guy 2
- died in the book
- lived in the film
white guy 3
- lived in the book
- died in the film
....
black guy
- died in both
I don't actually recall John Arnold's race being brought up in the book though, so I guess they decided that if he dies he should be black?
And?
Daemon Surge
Your point is?
Patrick R lol it's a joke.
In horror movies black guys are always killed first. It's a common joke
Daemon Surge Arnold wasn’t black in the book.
I even read the book and forgot most of these! I am very much liking this series. And I like how you showed here how a good adaptation works; separating out what works in print from what will work in film. Some things in the book, fitting as they are in that story, wouldn't hit the right emotional notes in a movie.
Both the book and the movie are classics, but for entirely different reasons.
The book is a detailed and graphic telling of animal maulings, realistic science, and the dark side of a Disney figure.
The movie is a beautiful Spielbergian journey through an amazing theme park that goes awry with the help of corporate sabotage and chaos, but all the while still reminds you that these creatures are just animals.
I saw this and was like “there was a book?!?”
When the film is so good you don’t care how it’s not a perfect adaptation 🤣
Sort of like How To Train Your Dragon.
I love coming back to rewatch these older videos. I adore them. They are a comfort for me.
He’s a real cutie in these older vids. He’s still a smoke show now, but he’s adorable in these ones.
Kudos on the Zelda belly.
In the book Tim had both the dinosaur enthusiasm and the computer smarts, albeit not on Movie Lex’s level for the latter. Movie Lex got the computer stuff and was aged up so she wasn’t completely useless. Additionally their presence on the island is because their parents are going through a divorce and that granddad’s tropical island resort is a good place for the kids to go while dealing with divorce proceedings. This backstory would get used in Jurassic World, where the divorce of Mr and Mrs Mitchell has a worrying affect on Grey but not so much his older brother Zach.
First time I've seen any of your videos. Pretty impressive.
I love both the Jurassic Park book and film for different reasons, and you've illustrated them well here. It's really amazing that the book and film are so similar in all the major ways but so different in all the minor ones. My wife didn't believe me when I told her that Hammond died, Grant loved kids, the raptors were cannibals, and that Genarro was actually pretty cool.
You should do The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The movie and the book are like night and day. The plot and characters are almost completely different. The only characters that exist in both versions are Malcom, Harding, Kelly (who is NOT Malcom's daughter in the book), and Carr. The main antagonist in both versions are completely different people, as are several of the main protagonists. It'd be a fascinating endeavor.
A couple of things to also note:
1) Dodgeson, the character Nedry meets in San Jose and was taking the dinosaur embryos to, had a MUCH larger role in the first half of the book (not to mention the sequel).
2) In the book, the "sight based on movement" the wasn't exclusive to the Tyrannosaur (Grant encounters it in a Maiasaur as well) and was hinted to be a result of Wu using amphibian DNA to fill in the gaps in the dinosaur DNA, and not something the dinosaurs had naturally (IRL, most, if not all, dinosaurs would have had eye sight comparable to modern humans, at the very least).
Also, the dilophosaurus didn't have a frill nor shriek in the book before spitting.
please do a lost in adaptation on 'holes'. i am a big fan of both the book & the movie and hope that they can be analised.
There's really not a lot of differences between the movie and book, so it probably wouldn't be good material for this show.
@@munromister777 That hasn't stopped him before.
This is one of the few cases where I think the movie is actually better than the book. Sure, I liked the amount of veleceraptors in the book, or when they run the program without the limits to find that out, but that is about all I remember what was good about it.
Oh, and I have two little things that make me wonder about your video here: first I find it strange how you pronounce the name Micheal Crichton; and secondly, could you show in your statistics how much overlap between the people you asked there is? Since I cannot see if of the 20 people there was no overlap and the 3 who read it never watched it, or if there have been a overlap and thus also people who have neither read it or watched it.
+Drudenfusz pronounced like cry ton
As in Kryten :)
Well, the book has the advantage of the island getting straight up NUKED XD The Dom really undersold it by saying "bombed the shit out of it"
I actually have the opposite opinion. I saw the movie first and then I read the book and felt that the book had better suspense, horror, and action. the dinosaurs truly seemed alien and strange, and when people were in danger it just felt far more um, dangerous. in the movie I was certain the kids would make it because movies rarely ever kill children, but in the book I honestly had moments when I thought the kids were gonna bite the dust. and all the characters, save Lex, were more human and multifaceted in the book, and that lead to a more compelling story for me. also as a science geek I loved all the science that was in the book about the dinosaurs and keeping them alive in the modern era that just didn't get into the movie at all. this is not to say the movie is bad, the story is good enough for a movie, mainstream audiences just won't get a lot of stuff, like the science or much of the nuance in anything, and the effects hold up today, even compared to Jurassic World which should have had just as good if not better effects but didn't.
Wow. I left a comment here 5 years ago about my mother not letting my brother see the T-Rex toilet scene because he was potty training at the time and I was a VERY MUCH older sister (he was 3, I was 16) And I still see the comment at the top. Bravo RUclips. ANYWAY re watching your videos. I just had to tell you about my old comment. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHZHHA.
It isn't so much that the T-Rex can't (supposedly) see moving objects as it is that moving objects aren't seen as FOOD. If it doesn't move, it isn't prey. Yes I know the movie is shit at explaining this, but really if you think about it one makes sense, the other does not. Its the same principle as not running from a wild predator, if you run you are prey. The only difference is that a wild contemporary predator is assumed to still be completely able to view you as edible, but I assume they make T-Rex as an animal that does not scavenge, at all.
IIRC, the book sequel actually directly refutes the "sight based on movement" thing as being a stupid theory and goes on to state that the only reason the T-Rex didn't eat them in the first book must've been that it wasn't hungry at the time.
I listened to an audiobook version, and they said that the movement-based vision was a side-effect of the frog DNA. The Apatosauruses had the same issue.
Kittyhawk Pretty sure that Rexy isn’t interested in eating small prey (despite killing Donald without swallowing him because she’s playing with her food like an orca), and she would’ve prefer eating larger prey (oh, yeah, she ate the Gallimimus because of how big they were even though T-Rene’s can eat more 500 pounds of meat). Also, Rexy is mostly sympathetic towards humans who raised her when she killed the two Velociraptors saving the protagonists, unless threatened (take note on Eli Mills).
@@Kefkaesque13 to be honest, watching the car attack scene, it looks like she is exploring, not hunting
Michael Crichton (cry-ton), not Michael Christian.
Mike D i think 50 shades for something to his braim
Thank you for existing. I've been looking for something to calm me down from a panic attack for almost an hour and nothing was working. But your videos do it for me every time ♥️🙂
I read this book after watching the (amazing) movie, and might have actually enjoyed it more. The Lawyer is a total badass in this, but in effort to make the setting of the second book closer to the ending of the film he was killed off page via disentary (and Malcom is magically alive again too). Hammond dieing to the compys of all things is also a very fitting end.
Crichton is pronounced Cry-ton
I've read the book at least 6 times. Some things you said really confused me... like the hospital scene. It's a pack of procompsognathus that eat a baby, not a velociraptor. Or velociraptors being on a boat. I remember them only trying to migrate.. I think there might be different versions around?
Also, yeah it's almost funny that there so many weird "small" changes going on, like reversing Grant and Hammond when it comes to liking children, Muldoon being the sum of two different characters, Lex and Tim reversing in ages etc
And it's only this specific T-rex that had the invisible-stationary vision problem bc of the genetic manipulation. As Woo says in the book, these are not real dinosaurs. They are what the scientists wanted them to be, especially since they added foreign dna.
Lastly, there were maaaany more things left out, that were either included in the sequels or not at all. For example, the fact that baby velociraptors are actually very friendly and they only become overcome by bloodlust after they join the pack, the resolution to the triceratops scene, the pterosaur scene, them riding on a motorbike along a velociraptor trying to sedate her, hiding in a waterfall maintenance room from the T-rex, Grant freaking crawling in the velociraptor dent where they ignored him and acted like a structured caring pack trying migrate ect.
musicaddictor actually they do see two juvenile raptors on a boat while leaving for the visitor center in the cars.
That's Jabu Jabu's Belly from Zelda: Ocarina Of Time...
You can see the switch you have to hit with the boomerang.
I love this series and appreciate how professional and comical you make it.
I love the way you do this. It's fascinating what gets left in/out and changed.
The real suspense in the novel is turning pages trying to figure out how they cloned the dinosaurs from blood sucked from mosquitos. Brilliant!
8:18 A major inspiration for the Jurassic Park Ride.
This was my dad's and my favorite movie to watch when I was little. He's no more, but I recently got a dinosaur tattoo in memory of him. To say jurassic park was one of the reasons many 90s kids love dinosaurs is an understatement. The movie has a very heartwarming/awe insipiring nature to it that couldnt be replicated in the sequels, which I attribute to the beautiful score and the way Steven's adapted the source material that transformed a great sci-fi book into a core childhood memory for a lot of people.
I think film Donald is more of book Ed Regis with Donald's basic job.
The "dark part" is that three birdlike dinosaurs eat a newborns face in chapter 4 or 5. Its only one paragraph long, comes out of nowwhere and only says "she saw what happend to the bab's face".
5:20 As often happens with adaptations, Gennaro in the film is a composite of two characters from the novel: Donald Gennaro, a lawyer representing Japanese investors, and Ed Regis, Jurassic Park's PR manager (who for some reason Crichton calls by his full name 9/10 times). Film Gennaro's death was actually Ed Regis' death, who ran when the T-Rex attacked (Lex screams "He left us!" in both versions) and is killed soon after.
7:37 The mid-book section where the park is seemingly being restored, only for everything to go to hell again, reminded me of how in Crichton's next novel, _Rising Sun,_ the middle of the book has a point where the story reaches a seeming dead end. When I read that book 20 years ago, it was one of the most surprising things I had ever read in a book. I felt completely drained and had no idea how the story could continue. _Rising Sun_ is one of my favorite books of all time, partly because of it. Crichton had done the opposite of that with _Jurassic Park,_ leading you to believe things were looking up and all they needed to do was track down Grant and the kids. Nope...!
9:06 The species of dinosaurs on the mainland weren't explicitly stated, but we know they were velociraptors. This video doesn't mention another major scene from the end of the book that wasn't in the film, where Grant, Gennaro, Sattler and Muldoon go to the south of the island to find the raptors' nests. There they discover that velociraptors have migratory instincts, and the movement of the unknown dinosaurs on the mainland was described by Dr. Gutierrez as, "like a migration." The novel ends with a massive cliffhanger!
I'm here because I watched your most recent video Q & A, and realized I still love your old videos
Fun Fact: they did test on t-rex skulls and not only disproved the "vision based on moment" thing, but discovered that they had binocular vision on par with that of a Raptor (bird family, not the dinosaurs), so them dropping this in the sequel film actually made it the most scientifically accurate of the 2 movies
When does that ever come up in the sequel? As far as I can tell, the rules with the T-Rex still apply
Dom, I found you by the Channel awesome, I have to say you are the best addition so far. You will be big star !!
The funny thing that in 2016 it was proven that dinosaurs are more like birds then reptiles and that they have feathers as well as they have sounds like birds as well. But let me know if I am wrong about his
Kind of. The problem with the word "dinosaurs" is its a very VERY general term that encompasses hundreds of thousands of different spices that all lived in very different times over millions of years. Some of them almost certainly were more bird like while others were straight up big lizards.
The Dom oh ok thank you for letting me know that.
Brenna Brodbeck long before 2016 actually
Nathaniel Kamps oh
Yeah it was years before 2016. I remember being told that when I was a kid.
Good episode this.
For some reason I didn't think I would like these Lost in Adaptation videos, but they are really well made, informational and funny!
So I will continue watching these!
Dude your videos are awesome. I don’t get how you don’t have more subscribers. Keep up the good work!!
How about reviewing Matilda?
Just found these videos thanks to the Ender's Game one showing up on Channel Awesome. Didn't agree completely, kinda liked the movie...Especially the scene where Ender realizes that his final victory wasn't a simulation. Kudos to that young actor, I feel he did a fairly good job of capturing the abject horror a kid, or even an adult, would feel upon finding out they just destroyed a species for real, even if they knew they were training to do just that.. Loving Lost in Adaptation, looking forward to more...And I agree 100% about the Starship Troopers movie sequels. They, in a word, SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED.
Fun fact: The "velociraptor" in the movies are actually based on deinonychus, which is a distant ancestor. He chose to call them velociraptor because he liked the name better.
That totally ruined my childhood tbh
That Soundtrack man. Say what you want - but it's one of the most beautiful pieces of music I ever have heard in my life.
You should do The Lost World, that might mean another use of the "in name only" clause though.
Ginaro was a mix of two different characters, Ed Regis being in the other. The deaths and everything where shared by him
Love your videos Dom!!! Super excited to see more of your videos :)
There’s a but in the second book where Malcolm says how stupid an idea it is that the T-Rex wouldn’t be able to see stationary things
I didn't think they meant T-rexes are literally unable to see stationary things. Just that in hunting, their vision is based on movement. They wouldn't be interested enough to chomp anything that's still. But they didn't explain it very well.
Please review the percy jackson book to movie adaptions. The books are some of the greatest I've ever read. The movies are pure garbage that dump all over the books and their fans.
***** You're the best
***** Also, you must review the evil that is Twilight, as is the right and privilege of all reviewers.
Jenifer Joseph
He said that he won't do Twilight because he doesn't want to compliment the films in case they're accurate to the books.
*****
You'll just LOVE the second movie.
***** Thank you so much! For the same studio that brought us HP, I was sorely disappointing. Could've been so good.
Great review. Loved the film (and still do). Finally read the book recently and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. Believe you me I was shocked by the book lawyer after only having experienced the film. AND I was shocked by the old man's level of denial. WOW, just wow. Both versions need to be experienced (both so good).
By the way, as everyone is saying, Crichton is pronounced differently than Christian. Think Farscape's main character.
Hey The Dom love your show keep it up. I was wondering since you did Jurassic Park how about Jaws?
I love for the deaths in book & film section, you added banjo music.
Just so you know Dom. Every second you had the Jurrasic Park theme playing I was not listening to a word.
The part I remember in the book most fondly is the velociraptor who bonded with Tim and died to protect him
My favourite quote from the book:
Muldoon: "about all we can do is blow them apart"
He is such a badass in the book!
The reason why the book is so different from the movie because the writer said he originally wanted to write a PG story but his editors fed nobody would buy it and made him right an R rated story but his friends Steven Spielberg offered to make it into a movie and the writer got the right the story he originally wanted to right.
Dom you made a mistake!!! Ian didn't die. Yes in the book, its implied that he died, but in the written sequel, its revealed he actually survived getting mauled by the t-rex, and his death was only assumed. In the sequel, he comes back but he suffered permenant damage to his leg resulting in him having to walk around with a cane.
+Michael Lamere Yeah but only because the first film came out before crichton had written a second book. Michael Crichton brought Ian back from the dead because the film turned him into everybody's favorite character and they wanted to make a sequel to the first film.
He does die in the book. The book describes him dying- it doesn't say "other people saw him die", it describes the passing of Ian Malcolm in detail. And in the book, Malcolm was not that charming, so it wasn't the worst thing in the world. Crichton had no idea people were going to respond the way they did to Jeff Goldblum's interpretation of the character so he did what no author should ever do and he compromised the integrity of his own book to appease the film adaptation.
I know, in retrospect it is a big "so what!?", but when you read the book then saw the film, picked up The Lost World when it came out and were expecting A) Malcolm to still be dead and B) the book to follow the further adventures of the previous book's main protagonist, Dr. Grant, it was a real kick in the balls!! Especially given the ham-handed way Crichton dismissed the previous death as simply people greatly exaggerating his injuries- no, dude, you died! No one was there to exaggerate shit, the dude just died, high on morphine and thinking about chaos.
Please understand I'm not being aggressive towards you- I'm simply aggravated that a celebrated author would dismiss fans of the book to facilitate the Hollywood sequel.
Ian: "Reports of my death were greatly exaggerated" xP
He got retconned back to life by his maker.
I wouldn't say the passing is described in so much detail as you're making out. Here's the moment from the book.
"Harding sighed. Despite all efforts, Malcolm was rapidly slipping into a terminal delirium. His fever was higher, and they were almost out of his antibiotics.
'What don't you care about?'
'Anything,' Malcolm said. 'Because...everything looks different...on the other side.'
And he smiled."
It very, VERY strongly implies that he dies. It's clearly meant to read that him smiling is the moment he dies. But I guess the key point here is that the book never outright says that he dies. The closest to it is when Grant asks Muldoon about him, simply saying "Malcolm?" and Muldoon shakes his head. There's the barest of wiggle room, but there's still wiggle room there.
Constructive criticism: 1), Malcolm didn't actually die in the book. The survivors were told to assume he was dead. 2), Crighton rhymes with frighten, something the author has made abundantly clear in several interviews.
My thoughts: your review was AWESOME!! I love how you this series is progressing, and I'm binge-watching it now!
In the book, Gennaro did not go back to the tour cars after tending to the sick dinosaur (Book: Stegesaurous; Film: Triceratops).
Just subbed, great analysis. I would be one of those people who have read both of most of the movie/books you review. Jurassic Park is a fine book and maybe my GOAT movie
Interesting fact, the Jurassic Park River Journey Ride in Universal Studios was originally based off the waterfall section in the book. They had to do this since the ride came out before the film, and they didn't want to give too many spoilers.
This was actually the review that drew me to this beautiful reviewer! For the longest time I'd had a similar idea in mind for such a review series (yet lacked the technical skills/motivation) and I was extremely pleased to find out that there was a perfect review that summed up my own feelings regarding this book and the film adaptation. I eagerly await the sequel video.
I feel like the biggest change was probably in the tone, and I feel like many of the other changes come from that. While the book was an at times quite visceral science fiction adventure and meditative drama about human beings playing God, the film is a Steven Spielberg film so it’s a lot more geared around the whimsical nature of the park and I’m fairly sure this is also partly due to their desire to show off the visual effects, of course this was 1993 and modern Computer Generated Imagery was its infancy. That’s also probably why they made Hammond a misguided eccentric in the film, and gave Grant a character arc about coming around on the idea of children. The movie was clearly just trying to be fun and at times frightening adventure with somewhat fantastical creatures, whereas the book is more a thought provoking science fiction tale about man tampering with nature.
T. rex actually had amazing eyesight, probably the best of anything ever.
LMAOOOOO that maternity ward joke had me choking on my pasta!!! *gulp* AAaah~ thank you so mucg for that. I love these books and the films scarred me as a child!
"Damnit Woo!" lolol
9:18 😂
So... I was today days old when I found out there are books that predate the movies and are in fact not novelizations of the movies. Live and learn!
Do you think they'd have kept Hammond as a villainous a-hole if they'd cast anyone other than Richard Attenborough? I mean, nobody would ever take him as a selfish bastard seriously, right?
The theme that starts at :56 will never not fail to make me grin like an idiot and send chills up my spine.
Nedry was also given a bad makeover, he wasn't an totally evil prick, he just did some of the stuff he did to get the things for money and was planning to start it all back up again and that went wrong.
I think the "can't see you if you don't move" idea works in a more "T-REX can see you but if you don't move it won't clue in you're prey"
Fun fact! The amphibian DNA thing can actually be used to come up with an explanation for the "movement-based vision" thing. There's a species of toad which can spot the worms it eats with perfect precision... as long as it's moving horizontally, like worms do. Otherwise, it still sees it but it doesn't register it except as part of the background
In the book Hammond had been using Grant as a sort of remote dinosaur expert while his company was working out how to care for the dinosaurs. But he didn't tell him what he was actually doing until Grant was brought onto the island. So there's this really funny bit where Grant is like "Hmm, I wonder why Hammond has been leaving these weird messages on my answering machine at 3 am screaming things like "WHAT DO VELOCIRAPTORS EAT? and HOW WOULD YOU KILL A BRONTOSAURUS"? And then somehow, he's genuinely surprised when he finds out that Hammond has been creating live dinosaurs.
Also I like that they managed to make Hammond into a cuddly charming grandfather type, that you do genuinely feel a bit sorry for, rather than the flat out sociopath he is in the book.I like that they managed to give him a bit of depth. ALSO in the book Tim has both the characteristics that were split amongst the children in the film - i.e he's both the hacker AND the dinosaur expert, and he thinks a lot about how his dad is a dick who doesn't approve of his son's nerdy ways.
ALSO the silly "vision based on movement" thing is expanded on in the book - I think it's supposed to be a trait of one of the animals whose DNA was spliced into the dinosaur things. So it wasn't actually a characteristic of real dinosaurs, just the clone things in the park. I was very annoyed when I read this - I spent YEARS as a child practicing lying perfectly still, so as to be prepared for when a T-Rex head came smashing through my bedroom ceiling.
Nice use of the T-Rex innards background, it reminded me of one of those Matte Paintings from the kids TV show Knightmare.
That transition into Jabu Jabu substituting as the T-Rex's insides was great :)
Wait a minute - that's not the belly of a T-Rex; that's just Jabu-Jabu's mouth from Ocarina of Time...
Even better!
I never realized how many movies are based on books until I started watching videos like these.
I'm glad you were able to pull up your pants before making it to the digestive tract.
One of the few adaptions that is just as good as the novel even though the movie changes up a lot. They stand up a lot as their own thing while one clearly takes inspiration from the other. I'm a huge Crichton fan. It pains me when people talk about the JP movies and never give Crichton credit, so this video makes me very happy.
Edit: Though, you mispronounced the author's name. Crichton is pronounced like "Cry-ten." Like the character from Red Dwarf.
I love the way you used the entries to "lord jobu-jobu's belly" thare
The Lost World Jurassic Park sequels both book and movie are way way different
Way, way, way different.
I don't think the lost word book was even written by Michael Crichton
The pink lemon he wrote it
He's probably gonna invoke the "in name only" clause for that one. ...If he ever makes it. It's been a while.
hmm Who knew the Doms films were so hard to digest?
6:59 I think "eyesight based on movement" is more "doesn’t care about animals that aren't running and therefore must be chased."
On death scenes and character rewrites:
1, The movie version of Gennaro has him condensed with another character, that's where all his negative characteristics come from. Book Gennaro was actually a very headstrong and brave individual.
2, Muldoon's death was an act 3 rewrite done mid-production because Bob Peck was diagnosed with cancer during the shoot and had to bow out from any potential sequels. The character of Roland in Lost World was conceived as a direct replacement for Muldoon, although Roland isn't in the books.
3, Arnold's death scene doesn't happen in the movie because a hurricane destroyed the sets. The premise of the scene was recycled and used as Muldoon's exit instead after being set in a different location.
4, Wu's death was not included due to the movie condensing down most of the novel. Wu only appears in the bare minimum amount of screen time to do the exposition and then vanishes. Wu was only brought back for Jurassic World because B.D. Wong went on to become a well established actor.
5, Malcolm doesn't die in the book, he just passes out dramatically. Nobody in the book ever makes any mention of Malcolm dying, and his introduction in the Lost World is essentially just Malcolm pointing out how nobody said he died, the readers just assumed he did.
6, Hammond surviving was also an act 3 rewrite, largely due to him being presented as too sympathetic a character thus far to warrant his death, but also because Spielberg wanted Attenborough back for the sequel. His death scene was also recycled and given to Dieter in the Lost World.
I read the original novel a bit less than a decade ago. Personally, I prefer the movie adaptation, since there is this sense of wonder and excitement about seeing all these dinosaurs come to life. In the book the dinosaurs seemed a lot more like monsters than actual animals, because of some of the more grotesque scenes being brought up here from the novel (one scene I recall was the adult raptors killing a baby raptor that Tim threw at them at one point). The characters also seemed a bit more likeable in the movie, even if there are some downgrades for certain characters.
Plus, the novel was a lot more cynical, which also makes me cynical about its message. It takes some leaps in logic to set up this scenario where they lose complete control over the entire park, so it does not come off as that convincing in the end. The movie may not be perfect, but I do think many of its problems stem from the source material, which has some questionable stuff in it.
It was still interesting reading the book, though; just to see what differences there are between it and the movie.
I think she can see non-moving things but they don’t register as alive. It’s like how cats figure out what animals are food vs. friends by how they move and react to the cat. Running away = food, approaching = friend or foe. That’s why they’ll freak out about a feather or a red dot that moves like a mouse, but can become friends with animals they should be eating. The T-Rex can see him but it probably just registers him as something along the lines of a big rock or stump. Not running away = not food.