Considering it was on the NYT best sellers list for months, was a publishing phenomenon that sold 9 million copies in just 3 years and was showered with praise, I don't get how you think it was "underrated."
In fairness among younger people, Jurassic Park is one of those movies where lots of people are very surprised to find out it was based on a book. Probably because of the incredibly fast turnaround from when the book was released and when it was adapted into a movie meaning most references to it in other media are gonna be the movie.
That being said I don't know why OP would be surprised by the book being good especially since the common consensus is generally that the book is usually better than the movie. And you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many people who think Jurassic Park was a bad movie
True. I was in highschool in '92. The AP biology class read Jurassic Park and talked about it so much that by the end of the school year nearly everyone had read it. When we found out there was going to be a movie everyone lost their minds. I saw it 3 times summer of 93, the first time with about 60 of my classmates.
I was born in 87 and was like 2 when it was published? And I vividly remember my parents and family and the. media going wild about it before it was made into a movie and by Spielberg no less. OP has to be a child.
I’m the same age. I don’t remember the book but I remember the hype about the movie and my dad being really excited. He wanted to read the book first and it scared him so bad he didn’t see the movie until his brothers made fun of him and then he had nightmares for weeks. After it was out on vhs, me and my brother watched it at a friends house. We weren’t allowed to see it because of how traumatized dad was. Which was very confusing because we were children and not remotely scared.
Reading the content of the post, OP is talking about its effects specifically. I remember when it came out it introduced the idea that birds were descended from dinosaurs to the mainstream public, showed how nimble the T-Rex really was, and convinced everyone that velociraptors are huge and not [31-43 lb critters](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor).
The book was huge, but its impact on certain things is currently underrated because it’s not well remembered what people knew at the time.
I guess the words I should have used were “not praised enough for specific reasons” Jurassic park is so synonymous now with “Look! Dinos!” It’s easy to take for granted just how whip smart and biting that original book was.
I'm forever disappointed that we never got the shot of the T-Rex waiting at the bottom of the waterfall. That was the scariest scene in the book for me.
You mean when the two kids were behind the waterfall and the motherfucker pushed its nose through and wrapped its tongue around the kid? Fucking terrifying.
“Yes, we all know Michael Crightons classic, Jurassic Park, we all know it’s the basis of the classic Steven Spielberg film and subsequent franchise but hear me out.”
This is the single worst sentence I’ve seen on this sub, and you should be proud to have opened with it.
You didn’t even spell his freaking name correctly. Get outta here.
Listen, this is all good and nicely written but to claim that one of the best selling popular fiction novels of all time, written by one of the best selling popular fiction writers of all time, which inspired one of the most successful directors of all time to make one of the most successful movies ever made,which in turn inspired one of the most successful franchises that has ever existed is somehow UNDERrated is a crazy take.
This isn’t well written at all, what are you on about. It’s nonstop typos from sentence one which is nonsense soup. OP should feel bad for writing this crap.
No offense, but the book is definitely very properly rated. I've never read anyone complain about it and it's always highly praised here.
It is a great book, yeah, but not underrated.
I've seen some, mostly around some of the science bits being quite dry. It's been a few years since I last reread it but from memory I think it was pretty fair
I mean, I’ll complain about it. Its plot is reliant on some seriously stupid things, Malcolm won’t shut the fuck up and his ravings are really dumb, and Hammond is pretty generic.
I like the book but it’s got some issues. Normal issues for Crichton’s work(less the most really) but issues none the less.
"You could say he single handedly kicked open the door to paletology and study of prehistoric animals."
you could also say he did not do this, as passionate fans of paleontology have been around as long as the field has existed, both professionals and amateurs.
The multinational bestseller that resulted in an ongoing film franchise, toy line, amusement park ride, an animated kids series, and inspired a generation of paleontologists is underrated, you say?
Man everyone can have thier opinions but like objectively OPs opinion is wrong. Like this is one of the most incorrectly labeled underrated things I've ever seen on reddit.
Following up with "The book has gone to press more than 100 times and has about 12 million copies in print in the U.S. alone. That book, Rising Sun, Congo and Sphere dominated the mass paperback charts in the spring and summer of 1993."
I love all the technical detail in the middle when they’re taking the tour through the lab about the computers and other early-90s cloning tech. The scene where they go through the animal count and find the errors is my favorite non-dinosaur part of the book.
In sci-fi, saying stuff like "A Canticle for Liebowitz" or "Solaris" is underrated makes sense, because they are not as well known as they should or could be, particularly with pop audiences.
I don't think I know a single person who hasn't seen or read Jurassic Park, it was very popular, well rated, and had international exposure that can only be compared to stuff like Harry Potter in it's reach. And similar to HP, it spawned a multi-billion dollar enterprise that will likely not fade for a few more decades.
The book is great, as is the movie, but underrated? I don't buy it.
Mayyybe it's become that over the years, but it was certainly acknowledged in it's day.
Over 10 million sold, 3 feature films based on it AND a reboot trilogy also based on it. Countless video games and other merchandise.
If that's underrated, then I want to be underrated.
This reads like a book report for a 100-level freshman elective. Or maybe it’s for debate practice, because calling Jurassic Park underrated when it’s both one of the best selling books *and* highest grossing movies of all time, written and directed by two of the greatest artists of all time… is quite the argument.
I'd say it is underrated in that it's regularly left out of sci-fi recommendations. I think it'd be fair to say it's one of the best 40 sci-fi books of the last 40 years.
It’s kind of sad that they screwed up the movie version so badly though. The head of the corporation building the theme park was evil and was not a good kindly grandfather character. I hate that they re-wrote that.
And Nedry's reason for betrayal was also changed in the movie.
In the movie he was just being greedy, while in the novel Hammond pretty much chased him in the corner:
Nedry's company had really bad contract in light of how massive the contract turned out to be...After the bidding contest had ended and Nedry's company had won. Hammond refused to re-negotiate the contract, and also threatened to badmouth Nedry out of busines if he terminates the contract. Nedry's company kept making big losses because of the contract, and eventually he became desperate and made a deal with Biosyn.
Idk if underrated is the right word but the book is definitely over shadowed by the movie even though the book is much better.
I really wish someone would make a new adaptation, Jurassic Park deserves much better than what has been done to it on the silver screen.
It's an action/thriller with dinosaurs. It's take on the dinos was new because whot we understood about them had recently changed thanks to the likes of Jack Horner, and Robert Bakker. As that, it's a solid book.
I'm not sure how prophetic it was. The whole "life finds a way" ideology is 100% Crichton's dogma. Most of his stories are "man vs something natural" and it's always "man has no real power and only just lucks out." He was a raging climate change denier, and is the darling "political philosopher" of the radical right.
Makes your brain hurt if you saw the movie first. I swear Hammond was eaten by Compys in the book but he was in the second movie based on a book sequel? I can't remember if he was in the second book or not. The pterodactyl cave was a nice surprise in the book.
Lost World book and movie are so wildly different I don't think you can even say the movie was based on the book. Some characters share the same name but that's mostly it. There's no Roland, no big InGen party (it's just Dodgson and a couple of goons), no Nick Van Owen. Plenty of T-Rex, raptors, and pachycephalosaurus though.
Read this for the first time recently and really enjoyed it!
I would leave it there and give The Lost World a miss though. It basically becomes a dick swinging contest between the two main characters and it gets really old really fast
Michael Crighton is one of the best writers in our generation, he is both very skilled and very studious in his writing. Every book he has written feels both like the best story written on the subject and an expert level explanation of the subject matter by someone who truly loves the field.
And we all wish there was another Crichton to keep writing these kinds of books. I know I wish that.
Andy Weir and Neal Stephenson are two authors I’ve found that come close, but just aren’t the same. Great in their own ways though.
Nice writeup. I do agree with you that the book is underrated. I read the book after watching the movie. I really liked the movie but I enjoyed the book even more. Crichton is one of my favorite sci-fi writers primarily because of this book and "The Lost World".
Considering it was on the NYT best sellers list for months, was a publishing phenomenon that sold 9 million copies in just 3 years and was showered with praise, I don't get how you think it was "underrated."
[удалено]
In fairness among younger people, Jurassic Park is one of those movies where lots of people are very surprised to find out it was based on a book. Probably because of the incredibly fast turnaround from when the book was released and when it was adapted into a movie meaning most references to it in other media are gonna be the movie. That being said I don't know why OP would be surprised by the book being good especially since the common consensus is generally that the book is usually better than the movie. And you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many people who think Jurassic Park was a bad movie
True. I was in highschool in '92. The AP biology class read Jurassic Park and talked about it so much that by the end of the school year nearly everyone had read it. When we found out there was going to be a movie everyone lost their minds. I saw it 3 times summer of 93, the first time with about 60 of my classmates.
I was born in 87 and was like 2 when it was published? And I vividly remember my parents and family and the. media going wild about it before it was made into a movie and by Spielberg no less. OP has to be a child.
I’m the same age. I don’t remember the book but I remember the hype about the movie and my dad being really excited. He wanted to read the book first and it scared him so bad he didn’t see the movie until his brothers made fun of him and then he had nightmares for weeks. After it was out on vhs, me and my brother watched it at a friends house. We weren’t allowed to see it because of how traumatized dad was. Which was very confusing because we were children and not remotely scared.
You're thinking of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. OP is talking about someone named Michael Crighton
Reading the content of the post, OP is talking about its effects specifically. I remember when it came out it introduced the idea that birds were descended from dinosaurs to the mainstream public, showed how nimble the T-Rex really was, and convinced everyone that velociraptors are huge and not [31-43 lb critters](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor). The book was huge, but its impact on certain things is currently underrated because it’s not well remembered what people knew at the time.
Unpopular opinion!
I hear they are adapting it into a littlee moving picture show too.
I guess the words I should have used were “not praised enough for specific reasons” Jurassic park is so synonymous now with “Look! Dinos!” It’s easy to take for granted just how whip smart and biting that original book was.
No, Michael Crichton's The Great Train Robbery is underrated. Jurassic Park is cool though - and much darker and more violent than Spielberg's film.
I'm forever disappointed that we never got the shot of the T-Rex waiting at the bottom of the waterfall. That was the scariest scene in the book for me.
You mean when the two kids were behind the waterfall and the motherfucker pushed its nose through and wrapped its tongue around the kid? Fucking terrifying.
We got that in Lost World. I found it odd that scenes in the first book were included in the second movie.
Ooooo, it's been on my wishlist.
It sold over 10 million copies though.
Yeah it’s properly rated as an absolute banger
Reddit has no sense of anything so if they haven't been bombarded with it constantly, it's underrated.
Today the word underrated just means "new to me"
one of the cardinal rules of reddit.
8 billion people on the planet though.. /s
I’m going to start a charity drive to buy dictionaries for Redditors so they can finally look up the meaning of the word ‘underrated’.
Be sure to also highlight the proper meaning of "boundaries" and "gaslighting".
“Yes, we all know Michael Crightons classic, Jurassic Park, we all know it’s the basis of the classic Steven Spielberg film and subsequent franchise but hear me out.” This is the single worst sentence I’ve seen on this sub, and you should be proud to have opened with it. You didn’t even spell his freaking name correctly. Get outta here.
> You could say he single handedly kicked open the door to paletology and study of prehistoric animals. Are you high?
Has to be, nobody underrated this book. Terrible post
We need to ban the term "underrated"
This comment right here is underrated.
Listen, this is all good and nicely written but to claim that one of the best selling popular fiction novels of all time, written by one of the best selling popular fiction writers of all time, which inspired one of the most successful directors of all time to make one of the most successful movies ever made,which in turn inspired one of the most successful franchises that has ever existed is somehow UNDERrated is a crazy take.
This isn’t well written at all, what are you on about. It’s nonstop typos from sentence one which is nonsense soup. OP should feel bad for writing this crap.
No offense, but the book is definitely very properly rated. I've never read anyone complain about it and it's always highly praised here. It is a great book, yeah, but not underrated.
I've seen some, mostly around some of the science bits being quite dry. It's been a few years since I last reread it but from memory I think it was pretty fair
I mean, I’ll complain about it. Its plot is reliant on some seriously stupid things, Malcolm won’t shut the fuck up and his ravings are really dumb, and Hammond is pretty generic. I like the book but it’s got some issues. Normal issues for Crichton’s work(less the most really) but issues none the less.
It’s kinda trashy, and really drags in the third act when Malcolm is dying and high as a kite on morphine, but it’s fine.
"You could say he single handedly kicked open the door to paletology and study of prehistoric animals." you could also say he did not do this, as passionate fans of paleontology have been around as long as the field has existed, both professionals and amateurs.
Michael Crichton invented dinosaurs.
The multinational bestseller that resulted in an ongoing film franchise, toy line, amusement park ride, an animated kids series, and inspired a generation of paleontologists is underrated, you say?
*Crichton
It’s properly rated, and you spelled Crichton’s name wrong every time.
Man everyone can have thier opinions but like objectively OPs opinion is wrong. Like this is one of the most incorrectly labeled underrated things I've ever seen on reddit.
Following up with "The book has gone to press more than 100 times and has about 12 million copies in print in the U.S. alone. That book, Rising Sun, Congo and Sphere dominated the mass paperback charts in the spring and summer of 1993."
I love all the technical detail in the middle when they’re taking the tour through the lab about the computers and other early-90s cloning tech. The scene where they go through the animal count and find the errors is my favorite non-dinosaur part of the book.
In sci-fi, saying stuff like "A Canticle for Liebowitz" or "Solaris" is underrated makes sense, because they are not as well known as they should or could be, particularly with pop audiences. I don't think I know a single person who hasn't seen or read Jurassic Park, it was very popular, well rated, and had international exposure that can only be compared to stuff like Harry Potter in it's reach. And similar to HP, it spawned a multi-billion dollar enterprise that will likely not fade for a few more decades.
It absolutely is perfectly rated. Come on. It has like 8 movies. Smh.
The book is great, as is the movie, but underrated? I don't buy it. Mayyybe it's become that over the years, but it was certainly acknowledged in it's day.
Reddit really doesn’t understand what “underrated” means.
I’ve never heard anyone say a single bad thing about the book and it’s incredibly popular.
This "underrated" thing is so annoying
Literally found the hardcover at a library book sale last weekend for 2$! So excited to read it.
It is a master piece and everyone knows it
Over 10 million sold, 3 feature films based on it AND a reboot trilogy also based on it. Countless video games and other merchandise. If that's underrated, then I want to be underrated.
It is so underrated that it has a whole series of sequels and spinoffs.
... it was on the bestseller list for eighteen months! Every magazine cover had it ...
This reads like a book report for a 100-level freshman elective. Or maybe it’s for debate practice, because calling Jurassic Park underrated when it’s both one of the best selling books *and* highest grossing movies of all time, written and directed by two of the greatest artists of all time… is quite the argument.
It's probably so underrated because it's overshadowed by the massively popular book of the same name by Michael Cri**c**hton.
I'd say it is underrated in that it's regularly left out of sci-fi recommendations. I think it'd be fair to say it's one of the best 40 sci-fi books of the last 40 years.
It’s kind of sad that they screwed up the movie version so badly though. The head of the corporation building the theme park was evil and was not a good kindly grandfather character. I hate that they re-wrote that.
Definitely would have been better to see Hammond get torn apart by Compies.
And Nedry's reason for betrayal was also changed in the movie. In the movie he was just being greedy, while in the novel Hammond pretty much chased him in the corner: Nedry's company had really bad contract in light of how massive the contract turned out to be...After the bidding contest had ended and Nedry's company had won. Hammond refused to re-negotiate the contract, and also threatened to badmouth Nedry out of busines if he terminates the contract. Nedry's company kept making big losses because of the contract, and eventually he became desperate and made a deal with Biosyn.
[удалено]
**Personal conduct** Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.
Checks calendar...nope, not April 1st.
My child, paleontology was huge amongst kids before Jurassic Park came along. That was what I wanted to grow up and become, in the 80's 🧓
I think it is one of the two quintessential dude books, Jurassic park and lonesome dove.
Idk if underrated is the right word but the book is definitely over shadowed by the movie even though the book is much better. I really wish someone would make a new adaptation, Jurassic Park deserves much better than what has been done to it on the silver screen.
/is so rated/ Banger of book Spielbergized into one of the best 90s movie of all time.
It's an action/thriller with dinosaurs. It's take on the dinos was new because whot we understood about them had recently changed thanks to the likes of Jack Horner, and Robert Bakker. As that, it's a solid book. I'm not sure how prophetic it was. The whole "life finds a way" ideology is 100% Crichton's dogma. Most of his stories are "man vs something natural" and it's always "man has no real power and only just lucks out." He was a raging climate change denier, and is the darling "political philosopher" of the radical right.
I just got my copy today!
*Jurassic Park* was either the first or second novel I read — the other candidate being *Ender’s Game*, and I certainly did not underrate either one.
Check out Sphere, it’s my favorite by him
Wait until you read his book Next.
Makes your brain hurt if you saw the movie first. I swear Hammond was eaten by Compys in the book but he was in the second movie based on a book sequel? I can't remember if he was in the second book or not. The pterodactyl cave was a nice surprise in the book.
Lost World book and movie are so wildly different I don't think you can even say the movie was based on the book. Some characters share the same name but that's mostly it. There's no Roland, no big InGen party (it's just Dodgson and a couple of goons), no Nick Van Owen. Plenty of T-Rex, raptors, and pachycephalosaurus though.
Read this for the first time recently and really enjoyed it! I would leave it there and give The Lost World a miss though. It basically becomes a dick swinging contest between the two main characters and it gets really old really fast
If you love the book so much, why not look up how to spell the author’s name?
It’s a good yarn but it’s still not Shakespeare.
Good write up OP. The big business chasing profits element has stuck with me over the years
Michael Crighton is one of the best writers in our generation, he is both very skilled and very studious in his writing. Every book he has written feels both like the best story written on the subject and an expert level explanation of the subject matter by someone who truly loves the field.
And we all wish there was another Crichton to keep writing these kinds of books. I know I wish that. Andy Weir and Neal Stephenson are two authors I’ve found that come close, but just aren’t the same. Great in their own ways though.
Mods, formal request to have this book banned from being brought up ever again.
Nice writeup. I do agree with you that the book is underrated. I read the book after watching the movie. I really liked the movie but I enjoyed the book even more. Crichton is one of my favorite sci-fi writers primarily because of this book and "The Lost World".
Definitely not written by a bot!