Quote from: Laufey on Dec 12, 2011, 08:59:55 PM
Of course, but that doesn't work as an explanation for everything.
Aware of that - while what you're saying is indeed true, there are differences left 'unexplained' (I'd very personally class them as 'artistic liberties'), most of them can be explained with them being different forms of media. As a sheer example both films completely lack some of the characters of the novels - sometimes they are 'fused' within other characters (e.g. in
Jurassic Park Ed Regis was fused with Donald Gennaro, and in
The Lost World Thorne and Levine were heavily compacted into Malcolm). That is a very common device to simplify the plot. Some other differences were devoted to the films' rating and potential public - you'd never propose a closer adaptation of
Jurassic Park to a child. The actual film we got is bearable (point in question I watched it when I was 3), the most brutal sequence of the film involves a torn arm. The horror elements in the novel are much heavier: they played it out safely in the film with Nedry's death for example, whereas in the novel it's sheer brutality (at a certain point Nedry, blinded by the venomous spit, feels something warm and viscid in his hands - which is revealed to be his own intestines).
Another thing which seems to be a constant in the franchise is the 'postponement' of some sequences - the beach Compsognathus attack was moved from
Jurassic Park to
The Lost World, as was the 'Tyrannosaurus and fall' sequence, the river sequence was moved from
Jurassic Park to
Jurassic Park III, etc. Here, that last one brings up another point - the novels aren't even marginally influenced by a budget, which is a very important factor in the films. If I recall correctly, the river sequence was cut from
Jurassic Park (you can see it in some of the concept arts, I believe) for budgetary reasons, but I'd have to check that one out.
Sometimes, it's just a surprise finale too - which is featured in both
Jurassic Park and
The Lost World.
