I recently read Jurassic Park for the first time and I thought the same thing. The movie provided a more engaging plot, had more emotional punch, and developed stronger characterization. Going back and reading Chrichton’s work has been a rewarding exercise to me as a budding writer. He had some great ideas but also surprisingly had a lot of flaws in his work.
Sounds like the movie made a change for the better.
It’s been some time since I’ve read the book, but I always say, Forrest Gump is an example of the movie being better than the book.
I agree, usually this isn’t the case. IMO the other example of this is with Jurassic Park.
I recently read Jurassic Park for the first time and I thought the same thing. The movie provided a more engaging plot, had more emotional punch, and developed stronger characterization. Going back and reading Chrichton’s work has been a rewarding exercise to me as a budding writer. He had some great ideas but also surprisingly had a lot of flaws in his work.
The best part of the book was making Hammond the villain, that should have been kept.
Another example of this is Fight Club. The movie has the big twist, which isn’t even hidden in the book.
The opposite of Marathon Man, where the book has a twist that the movie doesn’t hide at all.
How do you mean?
I found the book much more compelling.
After I read it, I thought that maybe I would’ve cared about the movie if he had a scoche of relatability or development.
Movie gump seemed like a trope rather than a character as soon as the previews were being shown.
I think we read different comments… Space with monkeys?!