Re: Michael Crichton on science & the media

From: John Marlow (
Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 01:36:17 MDT

You should pass this along to him; it might have a profound effect.
You must remember that he was not in control of the films, was not
sole writer on the first and isn't credited at all on screenplay for
the second or third--2nd got really awful at points where it diverged
from the novel.

As to characters, I thought Ian was very cool. Very very cool, okay?

Killed in the novel but not onscreen. John was suitably amusing, Alan
suitably Alanish, kids suitably kidsy--I coulda done without Ellie,
though. This on the films.

Lucy's have a long tradition of dying badly--remember Westenra?

re: SF. DID YOU SAY SF? sssshhhhhhh.
Figure this out: 10 of top 20 highest-grossing films of all time are
SF. Crichton is clearly writing SF. And yet.... "Science fiction"
label is the kiss of death in both Hollywood and New York. Crichton
is not called SF by the hoity-toits; 'tis a bad word, you see. Why?

See Crichton's comment on Hollywood. Apply to NY as needed.


On 17 Apr 2001, at 23:52, Spike Jones wrote:

> John Marlow wrote:
> > Fascinating stuff, isn't it? Anyone interested in maxing out on MC
> > (on all topics), stop by here:
> >
> >
> >
> > Q: What have your immense wealth and success earned you?
> > A: The right to be resented wherever I go.
> Immense wealth and success are not what causes Crichton
> to be resented wherever he goes. His killing Lucy Knight is
> why he is resented wherever he goes. Why couldn't he have
> slain Dr. Corday instead? Why did he murder the nicest person
> on the whole staff?
> What he fails to acknowledge is that even sci-fi needs depth
> and pathos in the characters. His Jurassic Park movies
> both missed because the characters were all so irritating,
> one found oneself cheering for the T-rex.
> Actually Im a Crichton fan, but Im still pretty sore over
> Lucy's tragic death. {8-[ spike

John Marlow

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:47 MDT