Jurassic Park: Is the Book Better than the Movie?
In honor of the upcoming release of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, I thought it might be fun to talk about the Jurassic Park phenomena. Specifically, the novel that started it all.
Jurassic Park was written by Michael Crichton, and published in 1990. Most people know it as the inspiration for the 1993 Steven Spielberg film, which has gone on to gross over $1 Billion and spawn one of the biggest franchisees in film history.
Both the book and film follow the same basic outline, but the film excludes many scenes and storylines, including a subplot about dinosaurs getting off the island and making their way to the Costa Rican mainland. The book is also much darker and more violent than the film, with several gruesome death scenes that read like something from an R-rated horror movie.
It’s tempting to discuss which one is better, the book or the film, but I don’t really think it’s that clear cut. While both versions have the same basic story, cast of characters, and main events, both also have very different priorities.
Crichton’s novel is more of a hard sci-fi thriller. It spends much of its length discussing and meditating on the mechanics of the park, paleontology, the ethics of de-extinction, and many other attendant issues. This, combined with its darker tone, make the novel read more like an Alex Garland screenplay than a Hollywood blockbuster. It wants the reader to think about these issues. As a result, the story comes across colder, and more clinical, while still being very exciting.
The Spielberg film is more of a family-adventure story. The tone is lighter, while still retaining a good deal of the suspense of the novel. There is still discussion of the philosophical issues that the story brought up, but these issues are largely relegated to the background. The focus of the movie is on the wonder and excitement of this incredible place, and of the amazing creatures within. There is also a greater emphasis on character development, human drama, and more heartfelt moments. In this way, it’s much closer to a Pixar film than to a Sci-Fi thriller.
The novel is more of an intellectual experience, but the film is more of an emotional one. Neither is inherently better than the other, both contain elements of the other, and the two versions complement each other nicely.
I’d seriously recommend watching the film/reading the novel, so you can decide for yourself which you prefer. If nothing else, it would be an interesting examination of how the same story can be interpreted in such different ways, by two very talented artists.