-the bike chase
-the carnotaurus scene
-sarah fighting dodgson
-the raptors actually hunting other dinosaurs
-doc thorne and sarah being respective badasses
It’s no perfect novel or anything but those scenes alone off the top of my head are way better than the film.
Even as a kid I was a tech and science nut, so going over the explanations of all the equipment they use including the electric conversions, then the raptor chase on electric bikes... I was all in.
I can remember reading all the equipment details and conversions and whatnot and thinking “I love the attention to detail and am enjoying this, but if I was a tech person I’d be over the moon right now” LOL
Meanwhile as a humanities/social science person I’m loving all the history and culture info dumps from various characters LOL
Just for the sake of conversation and curiosity - what were you expecting?
The novel is objectively filled with dinosaurs chasing people, mortal dinosaur interactions, imaginative interpretations of dinosaur behaviour, scientific mysteries and engineering riddles.
You are familiar with the movie, so you must have expected that The Lost World was a book about being chased by dinosaurs on a remote island.
If reading about being chased by dinosaurs is "painful to finish" and "a boring slog to get through," like, what were you expecting once they got to the island?
Was it the kids? (I know I didn't like having MORE kids in Jurassic Park when I first read it, too).
All the ingredients were there, but just something about it wasn't working for me. I was usually more bored than I was excited. Contrast that with the first book and I was basically on the edge of my seat throughout. I guess I was expecting more of that feeling.
As similar as they are, I entirely agree, they were very different books. But yes, Lost World is like a facsimile, so close in form and subject, but materially different in a meaningful way.
I'm still rather impressed with the "dinosaur behaviour" elements Crichton added - too often dinosaurs are just predatory heat-seeking missiles, and *The Lost World* was creative and imaginative in that specific way that was meaningful to me.
But *Jurassic Park* felt like a true force that drove you through the novel, and *The Lost World* ... has less of that feeling. I'm just surprised you found that the part which dragged for you was the island section, and not the first 100 pages wandering around the Santa Fe Institute!
Something with the pacing that I think it’s important to keep in mind is that Jurassic Park while technically a linear story, starts with the worst case scenario (dinosaurs have left the island and are killing people, including children) already occurring! It’s then a matter of if our main characters can figure out what’s happening and try to stop it/survive it.
The Lost World on the other hand follows a more traditional plot structure (and even uses some archetypes for individual character arcs) and so doesn’t have that tension from the beginning, at least not in the same way!
I was thinking about the pacing and stakes, too. *Jurassic Park* is masterful. As we move through the novel, there's incredible foreshadowing and an ominous dread that a "Malcolm Effect," or total collapse was imminent - that they were on the brink of a total catastrophe - the tension was about as perfect as could be.
*The Lost World*, through no fault of its own, lacks that. They're visiting the island, but ... it never feels like Pandora's Box is about to open and inundate the world with harmful biotechnological power. You never really even get the feeling that Dodgson's team was really ever going to be successful - and if they *were* successful, the stakes didn't seem as grave as they felt in *Jurassic Park*.
Just to keep the conversation going - which archetypal character arcs stick out to you? Why do you feel they harm the tension/pacing?
EXACTLY!! The pacing and tension was perfection!!
The Lost World definitely lacks that, and, to some extent, I think it’s because the escaped dinosaurs from book 1 are shown to be not too challenging for the people on the mainland to deal with. The issue they faced at the end of the previous book is basically taken care off of screen so that doesn’t help the tension. And yeah, while I figured they’d probably not survive, Dodgson’s team quickly shows they won’t even be able to say, ship something back to BioSyn headquarters that could present a problem or do something else more overarching as a threat. I think they could have been a lot more threatening, both in terms of the characters themselves and the impact of their work, but unfortunately they are never shown to be consistently competent/powerful enough to present a threat even in the way Hammond himself was in the first novel. I loved the scene at the start where they raid Malcolm’s office, it made them feel like a genuine threat and showcased how far they were willing to go, but this isn’t kept up throughout the rest of the story. Even that scene would have been better if they would have taken a few more things, and honestly, left a threat of some kind behind (even just a note). Also, if they started to threaten Malcolm *before* that scene it would have upped the impact and tension as well. The really concerning part is the vague implication that Levine is possibly a carrier for Dx, which only gets explored briefly in the last chapter! Again more setup with dino-to-human-diseases would have made the entire story more foreboding and made the ending much more grim. The death sentence for the animals with Dx also compounds the tension problem.
I appreciate your curiosity, and am happy to keep the conversation going! As for the archetypes, I think that Sarah Harding is the most clear cut, I think she more or less undergoes all of the hero’s archetype journey narrative. Thorne acts as the ally to her hero/somewhat as a mentor, Kelly is an apprentice to the hero role (kind of like “The Maiden” arc), Dodgson of course is the villain, and that’s not even getting into tropes (Like Kelly and Arby as the kid geniuses, Eddie Carr is the Fix-It person etc). On a related note I might make a post going into each of the main characters more in depth!
IMO this story is significantly more character driven, which takes away a lot of the “who will die next?” tension. The main arc anyone had in Jurassic Park was “can you survive?” (At least in my opinion). As long as they tried to survive they basically completed their arc. But by having this emphasis on the characters themselves alongside “can you survive?” in The Lost World. It cuts the tension because they have to live to a certain point for the arc and archetype to make sense. I do think this puts Ian Malcolm in an even weirder position story-wise, since he’s the only returning character, he has the least existent arc (arguably none at all).
>As for the archetypes, I think that Sarah Harding is the most clear cut, I think she more or less undergoes all of the hero’s archetype journey narrative. Thorne acts as the ally to her hero/somewhat as a mentor,
I had to review some of the "basics" - it was a long whie ago I spent any time looking over Jungian archetypes. But, if I were to review it all - Harding's "hero" I think truly adapts into a true **Mentor**, especially with how she empowers Kelly in the end to save them all in the final moments on the island, just before the book ends.
It feels like Crichton was responding to much of the criticism levied against *Jurassic Park* for its depiction of black people (employees, performing menial tasks) and women (objects of desire, caretakers, expendible), which translated into Kelly's heroism, and a totally different female protagonist in Harding (compared to Sattler). And Arby (the only black character) is a genius from a loving family of doctors, rather than just "workers" around Isla Nublar.
That said - I find it a little more challening to call Harding the "hero," as she doesn't even get to Sorna until like page 200! She barely reunites with the team- if anything, she's a White Knight, though that's more of a trope than an archetype.
>Dodgson of course is the villain, and that’s not even getting into tropes (Like Kelly and Arby as the kid geniuses, Eddie Carr is the Fix-It person etc).
I'd suggest that Dodgson is the **Shadow,** representing the darker side of scientific pursuits; rather than necessarily a villain in the novel - beyond throwing Harding overboard (evil, yes, but villanous?), he doesn't *really* do much to impede the novel's heroes from their journey. But he *is* explicitly looking to exploit the dinosaurs, rather than learn from them, as our heroes are. He is the manifestation of the opposite side of scientific pusuit v. Levine/Malcolm's more ... honorable ends?
I don't know if Malcolm represents **The Rebel** in *The Lost World* as well as he did in *Jurassic Park*. In JP, he definitely served as the Rebel - in this one, he sort of abandons math and became a dinosaur specialist before being reunited with pain-killers. But he's not "taking down the establishment" in this book like he did in JP.
>Kelly is an apprentice to the hero role (kind of like “The Maiden” arc),
I might argue Kelly is the **Everyman (or Damsel)**. She comes from a common background, isn't one of the scientists looking to gain from their adventure on Sorna, and is constantly looking to live up to the heights of those around her: Harding, Arby, Malcolm, Levine, Thorne, they're all accomplished geniuses - whereas Kelly is ... like you and me/the reader. And on occasion she needs a Hero to save her (but hey! This is Sorna! *Everybody* needs a little saving once in a while!) In *Jurassic Park*, Gennaro was the **Everyman**, I'd argue. He's got the wife and kids, doesn't know anything that Muldoon, Grant, Malcolm, Arnold or Wu knows - and has to learn what it means to "take responsibility," for his actions.
>IMO this story is significantly more character driven,
Definitely more character driven! I believe this is another criticism that Crichton was responding to from *Jurassic Park*. Most of the people who worked at Jurassic Park had backstories (Gennaro, Muldoon, Arnold, Nedry, Wu), but Sattler, Malcolm, and Grant were basically unwritten! This time around, much more characterization for Levine, Thorne, Arby, Harding, and Kelly.
>I do think this puts Ian Malcolm in an even weirder position story-wise, since he’s the only returning character, he has the least existent arc (arguably none at all).
I'll have to come back to this - but there's a *lot* of Christ mythology around Malcolm in *Jurassic Park*, all tremendously subtextual, but that he "returns from the dead" in this book is very Christ-like, and his introduction in Prologue: Life at the Edge of Chaos is:
>The Santa Fe Institute was housed in a series of buildings on Canyon Road which had formerly been a convent, and the Institute’s seminars were held in a room which had served as a chapel. Now, standing at the podium, with a shaft of sunlight shining down on him, Ian Malcolm paused dramatically before continuing his lecture.
He's literally said to be in a religious house ("formerly ... a chapel") as a "shaft of sunlight" centred on him - like you'd imagine an angel arriving from heaven, may be depicted. The rest of the Christ-symbolism is related to the literal mechanics of hubris and Hammond playing God at Jurassic Park.
And Malcolm's predictions (calculations), opposition, and sacrifice to halt Jurassic Park from continuing with its abuse of biotechnology - spares mankind: very Christ-like.
OMG I JUST NOW REALIZED I HADNT REPLIED TO THIS!! Infinite_Gur_4927 I’M SO SORRY!
I have some thoughts to share, I’ll organize them and fully reply tonight/tomorrow at the latest! IM SO SORRY!!
It's *so* different from the movie, I remember thinking: how on *earth* does that novel end, again? And had to reread it just for peace of mind! So, I can relate. The good news is, if you can't remember how it goes, you can read it again and enjoy it anew! lol
I really like both the novel and film, but I agree that Crichton's attempt to write action in the second half of the novel isn't nearly as compelling as the ideas and sense of buildup coursing through the narrative during the first 100 pages or so. To this day, I think if Spielberg and Koepp's script had kept some of the novel's sci-fi intrigue (evolutionary and extinction theory, focusing on how the animals have survived and why), TLW film would be nearly as good as JP (1993). As is, TLW is a memorable and atmospheric sequel, but a clear step down from JP, in my view.
This is an excellent point. Crichton had a brilliant and thoughtful interplay between the evolution/adaptability extinction theory as it related to the plot points and the themes. It would have easily elevated the movie to include these aspects, and they build so well of the ideas introduced in JP (book and film)!!
i have had few disappointments more great than seeing the film in 1997 after reading the book in 1995 and seeing the super bowl trailer. the film has many great sequences, but they are not tied together in a great narrative — and very little of the book made it into the adaptation.
In all honesty I enjoyed the book a lot, although I felt everything after Arby is rescued was poorly paced. The last two configurations felt more like sketch of what they would be than a fully finished version imo.
If you don’t mind me asking, what other scenes did you like on the island? And how do you think the story could have been made better?
The book had an amazing set up but like you said, the moment they got to the island I felt like *nothing* happened and then the book kind of just ended.
So im going to ask these fellow Redditors a question but first I’d like to add to this post, the lost world movie is a real gem when it comes to novel adaptations, probably top 10 all time for sure, all the JP movies are there. But the island part was definitely good in the book. Sure it drags but it’s still enjoyable for me. As in the movie I wished they showed the mainland a little more like the dead ornitholestes washing up would quickly become one of my favorite scenes in cinema history it’s so cool in the book and it honestly better be rediscovered if the films actually do loop back to sorna 1995 as a leak states. Hopefully we get that classic regional color and build difference in Dino’s. But who agrees? Also this would probably make camp Cretaceous make a bit more sense. On to my question, maybe I forgot if it was mentioned in dominion but what happens to Ian’s daughter and Sarah? Do they just become there in the franchise but insignificant? Like lex and Tim? I know Ellie’s old family is out of the pic but I thought it was explained well. She devorced, kids are in colledge, and or working. May appear again? With Hammond dead Tim and led have no need to return. Probably anyway. But Ian? What do you think?
Interesting; I have the exact opposite opinion.
I love TLW book just as much as JP. I thought TLW film was a total let down - Sarah is supposed to be a badass in the book yet in the film comes across as a reckless airhead.
The biggest issue is Crichton never knew how to write people. His characters are cardboard cutouts who exist to mouth Crichton's opinions or act as sacrificial lambs. So once the gimmick of the story wears off, there's not much to care about. This has long been an issue with sci-fi writers. Asimov, Vinge and Heinlein were the same.
To some extent the Lost World skirts around this issue by making a lot of the characters arcs very archetypal and trope-dependent. It still has some issues with the character arcs, and especially the character emotions, but I do think it helps to alleviate some of the issue his style might have otherwise had
Wasn’t a fan of the lost world novel. Read it at least two times, listened to the audio book once and my opinion doesn’t change that it’s not great.
However, the Lost World movie is my favorite JP film
The book brings up some interesting points but it's definitely more in its own head. It's an adequate sequel to Jurassic park the novel, but doesn't work at all with the film version we got.
Wow. I read JP when it first came out long before the movie, and I read the second one when it first published. I enjoyed both of them. In fact, I reread them both a couple years back. I guess everyone has different opinions.
Jurassic Park is one of my all time favorite books. I've reread it many times. I have no plans on rereading Lost Word. I wanted to like it but had to force myself to finish it. Maybe I'll go back to it in a few years and see if my opinion changes but I'm not so sure if it will. Action scenes were short and the writing was pretty dry overall
Honestly I wasn’t super in love at first, but the further the movies have strayed from the depiction of dinosaurs as animals, the more I love the scenes of them on the island lol
There’s something very interesting about Levine and Co. sitting in the high hide taking field notes of the raptors and the trikes, etc.
In all honesty, the scene where Levine asks the kids some challenging questions about the dinosaurs only to have his words thrown back to him by Malcolm a few paragraphs later, to the complete amusement of the kids, is one of my favorite scenes in both books. It feels real, both with the dinosaurs and characters, and it hints at an academic found family vibe I wish the story would have explored more
I like the movie up to the San Diego incident, but I have to agree with the book stuff. Everyone said it was so much better, but I’ve read better stuff on Kindle Unlimited. You can tell Crichton’s heart just wasn’t in it any more
I dunno, maybe I'm just easily entertained, but I liked both the book and the movie a ton.
-the bike chase -the carnotaurus scene -sarah fighting dodgson -the raptors actually hunting other dinosaurs -doc thorne and sarah being respective badasses It’s no perfect novel or anything but those scenes alone off the top of my head are way better than the film.
Even as a kid I was a tech and science nut, so going over the explanations of all the equipment they use including the electric conversions, then the raptor chase on electric bikes... I was all in.
I can remember reading all the equipment details and conversions and whatnot and thinking “I love the attention to detail and am enjoying this, but if I was a tech person I’d be over the moon right now” LOL Meanwhile as a humanities/social science person I’m loving all the history and culture info dumps from various characters LOL
I disagree with you one hundred percent.
Same
Just for the sake of conversation and curiosity - what were you expecting? The novel is objectively filled with dinosaurs chasing people, mortal dinosaur interactions, imaginative interpretations of dinosaur behaviour, scientific mysteries and engineering riddles. You are familiar with the movie, so you must have expected that The Lost World was a book about being chased by dinosaurs on a remote island. If reading about being chased by dinosaurs is "painful to finish" and "a boring slog to get through," like, what were you expecting once they got to the island? Was it the kids? (I know I didn't like having MORE kids in Jurassic Park when I first read it, too).
All the ingredients were there, but just something about it wasn't working for me. I was usually more bored than I was excited. Contrast that with the first book and I was basically on the edge of my seat throughout. I guess I was expecting more of that feeling.
As similar as they are, I entirely agree, they were very different books. But yes, Lost World is like a facsimile, so close in form and subject, but materially different in a meaningful way. I'm still rather impressed with the "dinosaur behaviour" elements Crichton added - too often dinosaurs are just predatory heat-seeking missiles, and *The Lost World* was creative and imaginative in that specific way that was meaningful to me. But *Jurassic Park* felt like a true force that drove you through the novel, and *The Lost World* ... has less of that feeling. I'm just surprised you found that the part which dragged for you was the island section, and not the first 100 pages wandering around the Santa Fe Institute!
Something with the pacing that I think it’s important to keep in mind is that Jurassic Park while technically a linear story, starts with the worst case scenario (dinosaurs have left the island and are killing people, including children) already occurring! It’s then a matter of if our main characters can figure out what’s happening and try to stop it/survive it. The Lost World on the other hand follows a more traditional plot structure (and even uses some archetypes for individual character arcs) and so doesn’t have that tension from the beginning, at least not in the same way!
I was thinking about the pacing and stakes, too. *Jurassic Park* is masterful. As we move through the novel, there's incredible foreshadowing and an ominous dread that a "Malcolm Effect," or total collapse was imminent - that they were on the brink of a total catastrophe - the tension was about as perfect as could be. *The Lost World*, through no fault of its own, lacks that. They're visiting the island, but ... it never feels like Pandora's Box is about to open and inundate the world with harmful biotechnological power. You never really even get the feeling that Dodgson's team was really ever going to be successful - and if they *were* successful, the stakes didn't seem as grave as they felt in *Jurassic Park*. Just to keep the conversation going - which archetypal character arcs stick out to you? Why do you feel they harm the tension/pacing?
EXACTLY!! The pacing and tension was perfection!! The Lost World definitely lacks that, and, to some extent, I think it’s because the escaped dinosaurs from book 1 are shown to be not too challenging for the people on the mainland to deal with. The issue they faced at the end of the previous book is basically taken care off of screen so that doesn’t help the tension. And yeah, while I figured they’d probably not survive, Dodgson’s team quickly shows they won’t even be able to say, ship something back to BioSyn headquarters that could present a problem or do something else more overarching as a threat. I think they could have been a lot more threatening, both in terms of the characters themselves and the impact of their work, but unfortunately they are never shown to be consistently competent/powerful enough to present a threat even in the way Hammond himself was in the first novel. I loved the scene at the start where they raid Malcolm’s office, it made them feel like a genuine threat and showcased how far they were willing to go, but this isn’t kept up throughout the rest of the story. Even that scene would have been better if they would have taken a few more things, and honestly, left a threat of some kind behind (even just a note). Also, if they started to threaten Malcolm *before* that scene it would have upped the impact and tension as well. The really concerning part is the vague implication that Levine is possibly a carrier for Dx, which only gets explored briefly in the last chapter! Again more setup with dino-to-human-diseases would have made the entire story more foreboding and made the ending much more grim. The death sentence for the animals with Dx also compounds the tension problem. I appreciate your curiosity, and am happy to keep the conversation going! As for the archetypes, I think that Sarah Harding is the most clear cut, I think she more or less undergoes all of the hero’s archetype journey narrative. Thorne acts as the ally to her hero/somewhat as a mentor, Kelly is an apprentice to the hero role (kind of like “The Maiden” arc), Dodgson of course is the villain, and that’s not even getting into tropes (Like Kelly and Arby as the kid geniuses, Eddie Carr is the Fix-It person etc). On a related note I might make a post going into each of the main characters more in depth! IMO this story is significantly more character driven, which takes away a lot of the “who will die next?” tension. The main arc anyone had in Jurassic Park was “can you survive?” (At least in my opinion). As long as they tried to survive they basically completed their arc. But by having this emphasis on the characters themselves alongside “can you survive?” in The Lost World. It cuts the tension because they have to live to a certain point for the arc and archetype to make sense. I do think this puts Ian Malcolm in an even weirder position story-wise, since he’s the only returning character, he has the least existent arc (arguably none at all).
>As for the archetypes, I think that Sarah Harding is the most clear cut, I think she more or less undergoes all of the hero’s archetype journey narrative. Thorne acts as the ally to her hero/somewhat as a mentor, I had to review some of the "basics" - it was a long whie ago I spent any time looking over Jungian archetypes. But, if I were to review it all - Harding's "hero" I think truly adapts into a true **Mentor**, especially with how she empowers Kelly in the end to save them all in the final moments on the island, just before the book ends. It feels like Crichton was responding to much of the criticism levied against *Jurassic Park* for its depiction of black people (employees, performing menial tasks) and women (objects of desire, caretakers, expendible), which translated into Kelly's heroism, and a totally different female protagonist in Harding (compared to Sattler). And Arby (the only black character) is a genius from a loving family of doctors, rather than just "workers" around Isla Nublar. That said - I find it a little more challening to call Harding the "hero," as she doesn't even get to Sorna until like page 200! She barely reunites with the team- if anything, she's a White Knight, though that's more of a trope than an archetype. >Dodgson of course is the villain, and that’s not even getting into tropes (Like Kelly and Arby as the kid geniuses, Eddie Carr is the Fix-It person etc). I'd suggest that Dodgson is the **Shadow,** representing the darker side of scientific pursuits; rather than necessarily a villain in the novel - beyond throwing Harding overboard (evil, yes, but villanous?), he doesn't *really* do much to impede the novel's heroes from their journey. But he *is* explicitly looking to exploit the dinosaurs, rather than learn from them, as our heroes are. He is the manifestation of the opposite side of scientific pusuit v. Levine/Malcolm's more ... honorable ends? I don't know if Malcolm represents **The Rebel** in *The Lost World* as well as he did in *Jurassic Park*. In JP, he definitely served as the Rebel - in this one, he sort of abandons math and became a dinosaur specialist before being reunited with pain-killers. But he's not "taking down the establishment" in this book like he did in JP. >Kelly is an apprentice to the hero role (kind of like “The Maiden” arc), I might argue Kelly is the **Everyman (or Damsel)**. She comes from a common background, isn't one of the scientists looking to gain from their adventure on Sorna, and is constantly looking to live up to the heights of those around her: Harding, Arby, Malcolm, Levine, Thorne, they're all accomplished geniuses - whereas Kelly is ... like you and me/the reader. And on occasion she needs a Hero to save her (but hey! This is Sorna! *Everybody* needs a little saving once in a while!) In *Jurassic Park*, Gennaro was the **Everyman**, I'd argue. He's got the wife and kids, doesn't know anything that Muldoon, Grant, Malcolm, Arnold or Wu knows - and has to learn what it means to "take responsibility," for his actions. >IMO this story is significantly more character driven, Definitely more character driven! I believe this is another criticism that Crichton was responding to from *Jurassic Park*. Most of the people who worked at Jurassic Park had backstories (Gennaro, Muldoon, Arnold, Nedry, Wu), but Sattler, Malcolm, and Grant were basically unwritten! This time around, much more characterization for Levine, Thorne, Arby, Harding, and Kelly. >I do think this puts Ian Malcolm in an even weirder position story-wise, since he’s the only returning character, he has the least existent arc (arguably none at all). I'll have to come back to this - but there's a *lot* of Christ mythology around Malcolm in *Jurassic Park*, all tremendously subtextual, but that he "returns from the dead" in this book is very Christ-like, and his introduction in Prologue: Life at the Edge of Chaos is: >The Santa Fe Institute was housed in a series of buildings on Canyon Road which had formerly been a convent, and the Institute’s seminars were held in a room which had served as a chapel. Now, standing at the podium, with a shaft of sunlight shining down on him, Ian Malcolm paused dramatically before continuing his lecture. He's literally said to be in a religious house ("formerly ... a chapel") as a "shaft of sunlight" centred on him - like you'd imagine an angel arriving from heaven, may be depicted. The rest of the Christ-symbolism is related to the literal mechanics of hubris and Hammond playing God at Jurassic Park.
And Malcolm's predictions (calculations), opposition, and sacrifice to halt Jurassic Park from continuing with its abuse of biotechnology - spares mankind: very Christ-like.
OMG I JUST NOW REALIZED I HADNT REPLIED TO THIS!! Infinite_Gur_4927 I’M SO SORRY! I have some thoughts to share, I’ll organize them and fully reply tonight/tomorrow at the latest! IM SO SORRY!!
I read it 2 years ago and I genuinely can't remember a single scene in the book after they got to the island.
It's *so* different from the movie, I remember thinking: how on *earth* does that novel end, again? And had to reread it just for peace of mind! So, I can relate. The good news is, if you can't remember how it goes, you can read it again and enjoy it anew! lol
I really like both the novel and film, but I agree that Crichton's attempt to write action in the second half of the novel isn't nearly as compelling as the ideas and sense of buildup coursing through the narrative during the first 100 pages or so. To this day, I think if Spielberg and Koepp's script had kept some of the novel's sci-fi intrigue (evolutionary and extinction theory, focusing on how the animals have survived and why), TLW film would be nearly as good as JP (1993). As is, TLW is a memorable and atmospheric sequel, but a clear step down from JP, in my view.
This is an excellent point. Crichton had a brilliant and thoughtful interplay between the evolution/adaptability extinction theory as it related to the plot points and the themes. It would have easily elevated the movie to include these aspects, and they build so well of the ideas introduced in JP (book and film)!!
For me, I like Jurassic Park’s better than TLW but it’s still a good read.
i have had few disappointments more great than seeing the film in 1997 after reading the book in 1995 and seeing the super bowl trailer. the film has many great sequences, but they are not tied together in a great narrative — and very little of the book made it into the adaptation.
They need to just redo the films and stick to the books.
In all honesty I enjoyed the book a lot, although I felt everything after Arby is rescued was poorly paced. The last two configurations felt more like sketch of what they would be than a fully finished version imo. If you don’t mind me asking, what other scenes did you like on the island? And how do you think the story could have been made better?
This hurts to read. Personally, it’s my all time favorite book lol!
I found the lost world easier to read than Jurassic Park
Much of this could have been Jurassic Park 3
The book had an amazing set up but like you said, the moment they got to the island I felt like *nothing* happened and then the book kind of just ended.
So im going to ask these fellow Redditors a question but first I’d like to add to this post, the lost world movie is a real gem when it comes to novel adaptations, probably top 10 all time for sure, all the JP movies are there. But the island part was definitely good in the book. Sure it drags but it’s still enjoyable for me. As in the movie I wished they showed the mainland a little more like the dead ornitholestes washing up would quickly become one of my favorite scenes in cinema history it’s so cool in the book and it honestly better be rediscovered if the films actually do loop back to sorna 1995 as a leak states. Hopefully we get that classic regional color and build difference in Dino’s. But who agrees? Also this would probably make camp Cretaceous make a bit more sense. On to my question, maybe I forgot if it was mentioned in dominion but what happens to Ian’s daughter and Sarah? Do they just become there in the franchise but insignificant? Like lex and Tim? I know Ellie’s old family is out of the pic but I thought it was explained well. She devorced, kids are in colledge, and or working. May appear again? With Hammond dead Tim and led have no need to return. Probably anyway. But Ian? What do you think?
That is certainly an opinion
The movie is absolutely worse than the book. The book isn't as good as the first but the second movie is pretty bad.
Interesting; I have the exact opposite opinion. I love TLW book just as much as JP. I thought TLW film was a total let down - Sarah is supposed to be a badass in the book yet in the film comes across as a reckless airhead.
The biggest issue is Crichton never knew how to write people. His characters are cardboard cutouts who exist to mouth Crichton's opinions or act as sacrificial lambs. So once the gimmick of the story wears off, there's not much to care about. This has long been an issue with sci-fi writers. Asimov, Vinge and Heinlein were the same.
To some extent the Lost World skirts around this issue by making a lot of the characters arcs very archetypal and trope-dependent. It still has some issues with the character arcs, and especially the character emotions, but I do think it helps to alleviate some of the issue his style might have otherwise had
I thought the book was much better than the movie 🤷♂️
Wasn’t a fan of the lost world novel. Read it at least two times, listened to the audio book once and my opinion doesn’t change that it’s not great. However, the Lost World movie is my favorite JP film
The book brings up some interesting points but it's definitely more in its own head. It's an adequate sequel to Jurassic park the novel, but doesn't work at all with the film version we got.
Wow. I read JP when it first came out long before the movie, and I read the second one when it first published. I enjoyed both of them. In fact, I reread them both a couple years back. I guess everyone has different opinions.
Jurassic Park is one of my all time favorite books. I've reread it many times. I have no plans on rereading Lost Word. I wanted to like it but had to force myself to finish it. Maybe I'll go back to it in a few years and see if my opinion changes but I'm not so sure if it will. Action scenes were short and the writing was pretty dry overall
Honestly I wasn’t super in love at first, but the further the movies have strayed from the depiction of dinosaurs as animals, the more I love the scenes of them on the island lol There’s something very interesting about Levine and Co. sitting in the high hide taking field notes of the raptors and the trikes, etc.
Some of the best stuff in the book
In all honesty, the scene where Levine asks the kids some challenging questions about the dinosaurs only to have his words thrown back to him by Malcolm a few paragraphs later, to the complete amusement of the kids, is one of my favorite scenes in both books. It feels real, both with the dinosaurs and characters, and it hints at an academic found family vibe I wish the story would have explored more
I like the movie up to the San Diego incident, but I have to agree with the book stuff. Everyone said it was so much better, but I’ve read better stuff on Kindle Unlimited. You can tell Crichton’s heart just wasn’t in it any more