this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
77 points (89.7% liked)

movies

1187 readers
148 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?

The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip 46 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Jurassic Park the novel is superior to the film, and by a large margin. People who say this are either viewing the movie through a nostalgia filter or haven't read the book.

One thing in particular that is obnoxious about the film is the messy themes. The book critiques capitalism just as much as irresponsible scientists, which is completely lost in the movie. Movie John Hammond is practically the good guy and suffers no consequences, which is makes it feel like borderline capitalist propaganda.

[–] hraegsvelmir@ani.social 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Having just rewatched Jurassic Park the other night for the first time since I was about 6 years old, my takeaway was mostly that the park needed a total overhaul of their EH&S department. Probably every single death was avoidable with less than a day's work to prevent it, starting with the very first scene when they release a raptor into the enclosure. That guy's death could have been avoided by simply

  1. Installing some rings into the posts on either side of the gate, and securing the shipping container to them to prevent unplanned movement of the container.
  2. Attaching some support posts to the rear of the container that would dig into the ground, rather than letting the container shift backwards.
  3. Have a pulley rigged up over the gate that could hook into the top of the door on the container, allowing the crew to lift open the container's door from a safe distance.

And that's literally the first scene. The entire main plot could have been avoided by not permitting a design with so many single points of failure, like only one individual being able to shut down critical safety systems without any additional oversight, and seemingly no fallback systems to account for either incompetent or malicious actors on the island.----

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 10 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Probably every single death was avoidable with less than a day's work to prevent it

This is where I disagree with the idea that Hammond's culpability as a representative of capitalism was downplayed. He keeps saying "We spared no expense" but basically every problem is because they spared many expenses. Sure, they spent money on the little luxury details to make it an attractive park, but they overlooked or cheaped out on everything that wasn't directly part of the value stream.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Agree with you. The book was much better--and the movie is one of the top 5 action movies of all time in my book. Maybe it helps I read the book before I saw the movie, which not many had the chance to since the movie was and always has been an insta-classic.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No nostalgia filter here. I just recently re-read the book and rewatched the movie and…. the movie is better in my opinion.

[–] ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 day ago

Fair enough. It's a fun movie with an excellent cast, but the capitalist edge leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Even Dennis Nedry in the book was an overworked, disgruntled employee who was partially a victim of capitalism himself. In the movie he mostly comes off as a greedy criminal. Although they did mention his "financial problems" in the movie.

It's been years since I've read the book, maybe I need to reread it. Maybe I'm viewing the book through a nostalgia lense.