4 ms·

In the case of Jurassic Park, I think Crichton's book was a lot better than the movie. One major difference between the two was the John Hammond character. In

In the case of Jurassic Park, I think Crichton's book was a lot better than the movie. One major difference between the two was the John Hammond character. In the movie he's a lovable naive dinosaur-loving manchild who meant well, and survives the movie. In the book, he's a cynical profiteer who brings children to the island in an attempt to emotionally manipulate his critics, and gets devoured by the most petty scavenger dinosaurs at the end. Relating to this, the book puts a lot more emphasis on the disaster occurring due to corporate greed, not science-run-amok. I think a lot of modern critics of the movie might conclude that Crichton's novel was meant to be anti-science (this viewpoint presumably being reinforced by Crichton's later statements concerning climate science...) however I don't think that's an accurate characterization of the book. In the book the disaster is caused by greedy businessmen who cut corners, while the heroes are scientists who use their knowledge of science to salvage the situation the best they can.

kilpikaarna 7y ago
I think it's obvious, and I even believe he is on record confirming this, that Spielberg saw something of himself in Hammond. As such he wanted the character to be more sympathetic and more of a showman than someone in it for the money in the movie.
friendlybus 7y ago
Hammond wasn’t a cynical profiteer. He didn’t care about the money, it was a pleasant after effect. The only thing he cared about was creation. Like a blind god he wanted genesis at all costs. He ends up terrified of his own creation, startled by a tyrannosaurus roar over a loud speaker. Had he kept his nerve he would have died of old age chasing creation on his secondary projects. That roar pushes him down a hill that puts him in danger of an eternal sleep from compy venom as he tries to climb a hill with a broken ankle. The book ends well killing Hammond and implying the death of Malcolm. It wraps up with nature and science above human control and mathematical chaos, which makes way more sense as a closing piece than letting it go on forever like the films.

kilpikaarna 7y ago

I think it's obvious, and I even believe he is on record confirming this, that Spielberg saw something of himself in Hammond. As such he wanted the character to be more sympathetic and more of a showman than someone in it for the money in the movie.

friendlybus 7y ago

Hammond wasn’t a cynical profiteer. He didn’t care about the money, it was a pleasant after effect. The only thing he cared about was creation. Like a blind god he wanted genesis at all costs. He ends up terrified of his own creation, startled by a tyrannosaurus roar over a loud speaker. Had he kept his nerve he would have died of old age chasing creation on his secondary projects. That roar pushes him down a hill that puts him in danger of an eternal sleep from compy venom as he tries to climb a hill with a broken ankle. The book ends well killing Hammond and implying the death of Malcolm. It wraps up with nature and science above human control and mathematical chaos, which makes way more sense as a closing piece than letting it go on forever like the films.