Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

I read the Star Wars book before the film was released in the UK. An interesting experience, given that novelisation of film usually goes "the other way" experientally. Film-of-novel is of course far more common.

In some ways, the book was better than the film.

(I read Abyss after the film, which I think was Orson Scott Card. I think the film is better than the book)

View on HN

The novel of "The Abyss" gives you more character motivation for Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's character Lindsey Brigman who designed the deep sea oil platform. You obviously won't have time to do that in a movie, suppose you shoot twenty minutes of a plausible 10-year old Lindsey having formative experiences as a little girl, when you're cutting you will leave every frame of that on the floor to keep more of the incredibly expensive underwater shoot, or the incredibly expensive CG, or the action. So it makes no sense to even shoot it.

So I liked that, because I feel the movie does leave her under-motivated as it stands.

But the film is pretty amazing, I just think it benefits from the book existing to explain Lindsey better.

2001: A Space Odyssey is visually incredible to watch, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense at parts. The novel that Arthur C. Clarke wrote concurrently is better in that regard.

The movie Jurassic Park has impressive visuals but is almost completely lacking the social commentary the book has about [bio]tech startups evading regulators and 'moving fast and breaking things.' The movie also turns the park's operator, John Hammond, into a sympathetic character.

In almost every case, the original novel is better than the movie adaptation. In the case of Jurassic Park not only is the book better, it's almost a completely different story.

> The movie Jurassic Park has impressive visuals but is almost completely lacking the social commentary the book has about [bio]tech startups evading regulators and 'moving fast and breaking things.'

I don't see it. That's literally the entire frame of the main plot of the movie.

> The movie also turns the park's operator, John Hammond, into a sympathetic character.

I don't recall Hammond being sympathetic in the film in any way that he isn't in the book, though the balance may be a little different. In both he is a mix of profiteering showman and naive optimist. The kind of warning that you seem concerned for in the book but miss in the movie (which I disagree about being absent in the latter) would work less well if Hammond was a mustache-twirling villain.

So, there is a lot to say about this, I started to write out an essay but realized there is too much to cover so I'll stick to a few key points. To cut right to the chase, John Hammond is a manipulative liar in the book. This is explained to the reader and Alan Grant by Bob Morris, an EPA official, who explains that Hammond operates a secretive organization that is setting up an expensive bioengineering lab on a remote Costa Rican island specifically because it is far from the eyes of government regulators. Shortly after receiving this information from Morris, Grant is contacted over the phone by Hammond, who confirms they have such a facility and expresses his hatred of government regulators.

The movie on the other hand never really explains why the facility is on such a remote island. The audience is left to assume it's for the tropical climate or to help contain the animals (which in the book had already failed, with numerous children already attacked and at least one killed by chicken-sized procompsognathids. John Hammond was aware the dinosaurs had already escaped containment, but denied it.) The use of the island to evade the law is not mentioned or even hinted at in the movie.

Then there is the matter of Hammond's grandchildren. Why were they brought to the island? The movie doesn't really explain this, except perhaps to say that Hammond wants to 'show them something real.' In the book, his motive for bringing his grandchildren is Machiavellian; it's his attempt to emotionally manipulate his critical guests. He brought his grandchildren to an island he had every reason to believe was dangerous because he wanted to hide behind them. He puts the children in harms way, using them as shields against criticism.

What of Hammond's motivation for the island? In the movie, the lawyer Gennaro remarks that they could charge anything, selling tickets to the uber rich. Perhaps they would have a 'coupon day' for everybody else. This angers Hammond who says that anybody should be able to see the dinosaurs. Hammond is a dinosaur nut, naive, but motivated most of all by his child-like love of dinosaurs. But in the book, Hammond is the one who wants to charge astronomical ticket prices, not Gennaro. Negative aspects of Hammond's character in the book are taken from Hammond and transplanted into Gennaro, who is then eaten by the T-Rex (in the book he acts heroically and survives.)

In popular media, people generally get what they deserve. Greed that results in the death of a child is particularly heinous and demands karmic retribution. In the movie, no children die, and Hammond lives. But as mentioned early, procompsognathids kill at least one child in the beginning of the book and attack many more. For this, Hammond's fate is sealed. At the end of the book, Hammond is attacked and killed by procompsognathids while everybody is is being rescued. He never gets his "come to Jesus" redemption moment, as he does during his conversation with Ellie in the movie. He dies a selfish asshole.

The biographies of kubrick and Clarke and Clarkes own semi and autobiographical writing about 2001 is fascinating.

Minsky helped with visualisations in the cockpit

His novelization of Aliens was cracking, very exciting.

The book came out before the film in the US as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com