Oh God, a thread about Jurassic Park.
The books Jurassic Park and The Lost World are the only books I have read a number of times that is somewhere in the teens.
It's not that they are that good. It's that Jurassic Park was the first original adult novel (not one based on a movie) that I have ever read, and I read it in 7th grade. The techno stuff made me feel smart back then, like I knew stuff most kids my age had no idea about.
I loved everything about it. The techno babble and the suspense. Michael Crichton being probably my favorite author, I now understand what made his books so awesome: he made all that techno stuff understandable to the common person and still managed to make it relevant to the story. When characters went off on wild tangents (like Ian Malcolm), it was acceptable as part of their character.
If I had seen the movie now, I probably would have been disappointed. Back then, I thought it was the best movie ever. We can tear it apart, and say it was loaded with mistakes (it was, it really, really was) and that it reeeeeeeally changed a lot from book to screen (less characters, less technobabble, less dinosaurs, dinosaurs changed sizes, people changed age and looks, less gore... yeah, gore, if the movie had been a better adaptation, the movie would be R-rated), but the movie deserves the hype for being the first dino flick in a long time (I saw and loved "Baby") and one that featured them the way Crichton and modern science has talked about them: fast moving animals resembling (and probably were) warm blooded creatures with some reptile qualities like skin and skull structure, instead of the big, slow, dumb monsters as they were thus far depicted.
Read the second one in high school. Actually thought it was better than the first. Crichton took the risk of actually blatantly contradicting the first book (remember the famous T-Rex doesn't see you if you don't move? Yeah, not only does he say that's not the case, one of the characters actually refers to Alan Grant as an idiot for perpetuating the theory). The book was suspensful.
You would think with a book like this, they wouldn't have to take too many liberties with it and change too much with a movie adaptation, right? I mean a camoflaging dinosaur! Not too many characters, just a small cast would be needed. A nice touch bringing the villain from the first story, into the second one. Really, really no need to change much, right?
Wow... my... god... Why? Why did they... Why? Why why why?
So for this second movie, we're gonna go big. Big big big big big!!!! Tons more dinosaurs! Huge cast! Just throw tons of humans at the screen!
Story? F*** the story! Not even the same plot. Dodgeson (the villain) not even in the movie. They got rid of the villain, and went with their own. What sort of steel are your balls made out of when you do a move like that? Gonna do a Lord of the Rings movie, but get rid of Sauron. Don't like 'im, f*** 'im. The new LotR villain is gonna be cyclops troll named Chunkor with a hunchback who wants to melt the ring into thong for wifey.
And then, when you thought the movie could NOT get worse, the climax of the film then turns into a Godzilla movie.
No. No no no no no. No...
Jurassic Park III (couldn't put another poster in)
As bad and as unneeded as this was, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. What is
sad is that this movie actually came closer to the second book than the second movie did. Still... how much more besides what Crichton himself has already written, can be said about this story.
And they're going with a 4th one now? Why? What else?
Just make another dinosaur flick. Or redo the adaptations with PeterJacksonlike dedication to the story. It really just boggles my mind where could they possibly go with the story now.