this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
903 points (98.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
27578 readers
2580 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's exactly the point. They did spare expenses, on a lot of things.
John Hammond Jurassic Park book spoilers
John Hammond is clearly portrayed as a villain in the book. They lightened him up in the movie.because it's impossible for richard attenborough to be a villain
He came to prominence playing a psychopathic gangster
Did he have grandpa white hair and beard then?
The movie really dumbed Hammond down to "overly optimistic money guy with a vision". Which was a bit distasteful if you've read the books. Just a bit.
Maybe. I really preferred the movie version. Sometimes I prefer to like characters. I enjoyed the story more.
I liked movie Hammond too, don't get me wrong. It's just a completely different story because of the character shift.
Supposedly, that is the whole deal with the Chilean Sea Bass that he gloats about. Spared no expense. Apparently that fish sounds fancy, but is actually super cheap. The whole park needed to have the shine of a top-of-the-line facility, but in the end, Ingen and Hammond had no idea what they were really cooking up.
The raptors for instance, I always got the feeling that paddock was kind of small and rapidly constructed. Those things had killed multiple people in the past, and the park's response was cram them into a jail cell. You'd think an intelligent, dangerous animal, that was not part of the tour or experience would be euthanized, rather than risk the whole park...but here is Ingen not dealing with the problem, and instead, actively making more raptors.
They just needed Chris Pratt, Raptor Whisperer and they would have been fine.
The book was a million times better than the movie. It was the first time I had read a novel that was turned into a movie and then saw the movie after reading the novel.
14-year-old me had never been so disappointed. And it taught me to never ever read the book before the movie.
Hollywood can't possibly live up to the power of your imagination.
I saw once that the reason Kristen Stewart was so hated in the Twilight movies is because all the young women who grew up reading the books imagined themselves as Bella. They were never going to like whichever actress was cast into the role since they would no longer be able to project their own likeness onto the protagonist.
I thought she played Bella perfectly:
A blank canvas. Nothing wrong with portraying the character accurately. I mean, I'm not sure all the mouth-breathing was necessary. Literally the only thing I remember about her, character-wise.
For me, it was really mostly the story changes they made so the movie could be rated PG instead of R. They also made some changes to some of the characters and the dialogue which made it come off a lot more cheesy than the book. Although, I will say, gender swapping the kids was a good move. I liked that it was the girl who was the UNIX whiz. In 1993, that felt like an especially fresh take.
Also, not generally portrayed as a "nerd"-type.
My wife always gets excited when a book she loves is being adapted (right now Verity and project hail Mary) but I learned from many disappointments to not get excited. I still watch most of them but I don't expect too much
After seeing the trailer for project, Hail Mary, it seems like they’re gonna stick pretty close to the book. Like they did with the Martian.
Film is a different medium. You can't have the same exact story in both a movie and a book.
I just think of it as someone else telling the story.
He was evil in the books and was horrible to Nedrey