Analysis of the original Jurassic Park

That’s all I’m referring to. Looking back at it now, I realize I’ve inferred something that might not be correct. It never actually says Malcolm is the IC. I just filled in that blank because the article focuses so much on Order vs Chaos, and Malcolm obviously talks about chaos a lot. That’s my mistake.

This is actually the only time the article mentions Malcolm (emphasis mine):

What does this mean for Jurassic Park? As it is, Doctor Grant’s attitude toward John Hammond’s ability to control the dinosaurs is one of skepticism, but not because of Order, because of Chaos. Grant simply agrees with Ian Malcolm, the mathematician. This makes the same point from two directions. But Grant’s function is not to tout Chaos, but to favor Order. Only this point of view would be consistent with his feelings toward the children.

Something to note is that the statement I’ve made bold is not quite correct. For one, while Malcolm certainly doubts Hammond’s ability to control the dinosaurs, he never says so in this scene. His arguments in this scene revolve around Hammond’s lack of humility. Second, even if Malcolm had been talking about chaos or the presumed inability to control the dinosaurs, what Grant says isn’t exactly in agreement with that. Grant’s exact words:

The world has just changed so radically, and we’re all running to catch up. I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but look, dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution, have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea of what to expect?

Grant’s got a bit of chaos talk right at the end (though you could easily argue for other elements i.e. expectation, determination, possibility, or something like that). Even so, Grant’s position is far more “let’s wait-and-see” than “you’ll lose control.”

The scene is about four minutes and is basically a dozen lines from Malcolm and a few lines each from Ellie and Grant (the above quote is every word spoken by Grant in the scene) and a few in between form Hammond trying to make his defense. It starts at about 34:10 on Netflix if anyone is interested.

Just pondering here, don’t know that it adds anything, but it seems like the underlying problem shouldn’t be seen as running the park or even that dinosaurs are back from extinction but…, I don’t know, the abuse of science or something. That’s what everyone keeps talking about. It’s not bad that dinos are back, but that they were brought back in a careless manner, without knowing what to expect.

That’s definitely Malcolm’s perspective. He says something like, “Genetic power is the most powerful force humanity has ever encountered, and you wield it like a kid who’s found his dad’s gun.”

The inherent frivolity of an amusement park is at odds with the magnitude of the forces invoked in its creation.

Alright, I was on the road most of the day yesterday, thinking about everyone’s input. A thought occurred to me about where the problem might be if the OS were in Situation, and after taking a look at the Table of Elements, I felt really good about it. This morning I started playing around with it in Dramatica.

I have a proposal for a complete storyform for Jurassic Park.

I’m going to cite examples and all that good stuff, but it’ll be later on or maybe tomorrow. For now, I’m just going to post my settings, so anyone can take a look in the meantime, if they’re interested.

Story Engine settings:

Resolve: Change
Growth: Stop
Approach: Do-er
PS Style: Logical

Driver: Action
Limit: Optionlock
Outcome: Success
Judgment: Good

OS Throughline: Situation
OS Concern: The Present
OS Issue: Attempt
OS Problem: Protection

At the end of the story Grant rides in the helicopter with the children asleep on his shoulders. This is a far cry from the Grant at the beginning who essentially attacked a child with a raptor claw to prove a point. Early on Grant seems somewhat self conscious about his theory about dinosaurs evolving into birds, but at the end he watches the bird flying alongside them with a sense of contentment.

The information he’s gathered on the island supports his claims, and he won’t have to fight so hard to convince his doubting peers. His treatment of the child and his defensiveness about his theories are both behaviors he needs to stop. These actions also show how Grant is Do-er. He’s neither content to let the child or the others at his dig believe what they want, nor willing to adjust his own beliefs. He feels the need to bring them around to his point of view. Later, when he wants to see the science facilities up close, he pushes the safety rail back on the ride (albeit with some help). He calls out to the brachiosaur to bring it closer so he can feed it and to help convince Lex that not all the dinosaurs are scary.

We see Grant using a step-by-step, logical style to solve his problems. Tim’s stuck up a tree? Climb the tree and get him down. When he and the kids are blocked by the perimeter fence, Grant first checks to see if they can squeeze through the web, and when that doesn’t work, he climbs the fence.

Throughout the story Actions drive Decisions. In the opening scene, a worker is killed by a raptor, which leads to the investors deciding to pull their funding unless Hammond can get some outside experts to endorse the park. At the major turning point in the middle of the story, the T-Rex escapes. And in the final plot point, the survivors escape the island.

The park has implemented several ways to control the dinosaurs, and each way is shown to fail. The fences and the security get turned off, the dinosaurs can actually breed, etc. As the characters attempt to regain control of the park, their options narrow. They go from rebooting the control room, to flipping a breaker, to needing to get a single door locked, losing ground to the dinosaurs at each step until the only option is escape.

The story ends in Success because all the principle characters survive, and the dinosaurs are left in peace. The problem throughout the story is that the dinosaurs just want to “do what they do,” to quote Grant, and the people running the park have made them into a theme park attraction. The moment the T-Rex accidentally saves Grant, Ellie, and the kids is presented as a heroic moment. The main theme swells. I think this is the outcome we’re supposed to want. Dinosaurs are too awesome to be in cages; the park should have failed, and I think part of Grant watching that flying bird, a symbol of freedom, is him agreeing.

Despite all that’s happened, Grant seems content at the end. The children sleep peacefully on his shoulders, and Ellie is smiling at them.

Most of the discussion in this thread has centered around the topic of which domain the OS Throughline belongs in. I started in Situation, then changed my mind to Activity. Now, I’ve changed it back.

Like Jhull said, dinosaurs in modern times is the source of inequity. At least it’s something close to that. I think if the dinosaurs simply exist on the island and aren’t coming into contact with people and the modern world, there isn’t a problem (barring an ethical one, but that’s a different story). The story can end in Success because humans and dinosaurs are separated at the end.

The Situation is that dinosaurs have been brought back from extinction and put in an amusement park. This has implications for the Present. Yesterday, the world was as it has always been. Today, we’re sharing it with dinosaurs. Under Present we see issues of Work/ Attempt and Attract/ Repel. We see strong examples of these thematic issues throughout the story. The mere idea of seeing living breathing dinosaurs is extremely attractive, but Malcolm is repulsed by the hubris required to bring them back. But the central issue in the plot is the question of whether those running the park can actually do the work or attempted something beyond their skills. Has their reach exceeded their grasp? In the story we’re shown that while the scientists were able to create the dinosaurs, their ability to control them is merely a failed Attempt.

Characters constantly Attempt to do things they’re ill suited for, which causes further problems. Nedry attempts to steal the embryos and not only wrecks the park in the process, but fails anyway and gets himself killed. Ellie’s attempts to figure out why the Tricerotops is sick delays the tour and leads to the trucks stalling in front of the T-Rex paddock instead of closer to the Visitor’s Center. Malcolm nearly gets himself killed (and does poor Gennaro) when he attempts to help Grant distract the T-Rex. Tim attempts to climb the fence but gets electrocuted because he’s not fast enough. They reboot the control room in an attempt to bring the park back online, but this shuts down the fences around the raptors and allows them to escape.

Problems in the OS are caused by Protection. Ellie says it herself: “These are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they’re in, and they’ll defend themselves–violently, if necessary.” The dinosaurs aren’t malevolent; they’re just animals. “They do what they do.” They’ve been thrust into an unfamiliar environment, poked, prodded, shocked, and gawked at. Dogs chase cars because they see them as a threat to their territory, and it turns out, so do T-Rex’s. From the other side, all the security and fences and safeguards is to protect people from dinosaurs, and the park’s inability to get that stuff right causes problems. After the park goes offline, their attempts to protect their interests only cause more problems. Rebooting the control room trips the breaker and releases the raptors. Reactivating the perimeter fence nearly gets Grant and the kids killed.

They’d have been better off doing nothing, Inaction. Sometimes the best solution is to just back away. After the T-Rex attack, Grant and the kids should have just waited in that tree to be found by Ellie. Instead of trying to get the park back online, the characters should have simply hunkered down and waited it out, since it’s implied the dinosaurs will die if not fed special food. In the end the characters run out of ways to protect themselves and have no option but to do nothing as the raptors attack, and hey, it all somehow works out. Finally, once the people leave the island and the dinosaurs and humans are no longer trying to protect themselves from each other, there is no longer an inequity.

You can see how Grant’s problem is Protection as well. In Grant’s first scene, he’s troubled by how technology will interfere with paleontology. When his bird theory is challenged, he protects it. When the child doubts the raptor’s viciousness, Grant ruthlessly comes to it’s defense and probably traumatizes the kid. There are several instances where it’s brought up how living dinosaurs will effect his profession. Grant is motivated to protect Lex and Tim even though he doesn’t like kids.

2 Likes

I actually had a whole different take on the film. Dinosaurs aside, I took a look at what I thought was the true heart of the film; specifically the first few MC focused scenes, and then where those end up.

When we first meet Alan Grant, there is heavy focus on one main issue: the fact that he doesn’t like kids, doesn’t want kids, and that’s a problem for him because his girlfriend clearly does.

This puts Grant in Psychology. Throughout the film, we see the evolution or change in his attitude explored. Grant is tested in several ways.

  1. The potential threat of Ian Malcolm, smooth operator and proud father.
  2. Alan is forced to interact and protect two kids, pulling out the solution to his problem, pursuing the role of being a father. (He tells them he’s not going anywhere, learns to speak to them in a caring and loving way, coaxing them out of trouble, staying up all night to watch them, and in the end stands between hungry raptors, protecting his new nuclear “family.”)
  3. By Hammond himself, who put Alan into a situation he thinks he’s an expert in, but comes to learn that “life finds a way” and that one must evolve to survive. (A theme that also originates in Alan being inept with technology at the start of the film and throughout).

At the VERY end of the movie, we are again with Grant, this time with two sleeping children in his arms, earning the affection of Ellie–looking not at Ian Malcolm next to her, but directly at Alan with a loving smile. Then she glances out the window at the bird flying beside them… the manifestation of a dinosaur who evolved. Alan sees this, understands that he too has evolved, flying alongside it, and smiles.

So… to me, that was the “heart” of the film. The dinosaurs and opening the park is really just the setting for Alan’s story to unfold.

When I plugged those criteria into the software, I ended up with what I thought was a working storyform:

MC Resolve: Change
Domain: Psychology
Concern: Becoming
Issue: Commitment
Problem: Avoidance
Solution: Pursuit

Putting the IC in:
Domain: Physics
Concern: Obtaining
Issue: Self-interest
Problem: Hinder

Hammond wants to achieve opening Jurassic Park for his own self-serving interests (as illustrated in the ice-cream scene), and his problem are the people trying to hinder that from happening. The investors, the naysayers, the actual logistical problems with the park itself.

My take on the storyform also put the Objective Story like this:

OS Domain: Universe
Concern: The Future
Issue: Delay
Problem: Avoidance
OS Driver: Decision
Limit: Optionlock
Outcome: Failure
Judgement: Good

Translation: The thing everyone is concerned with is whether or not to endorse the idea of delaying no longer in opening Jurassic Park to the public. And in the end, it’s a good idea NOT to endorse the park.

I imagine I’m probably way off, challenging the “broken storyform”, as I’ve only been messing around with this theory and software companion for a few years, but this just feels so right to me…
I used Jim’s Subtext in conjunction with this storyform and the main beats and signposts seemed to match the movie pretty seamlessly.

Still trying to wrap my head around Dramatica, using these well-known stories as examples.

Help? Haha…

You’ll want to include the dinosaurs in any evaluation of the storyform!

The trick here is to be able to argue all Four Throughlines and all Four Concerns at the same time. You could easily see Grant in Psychology or Physics or Universe or Mind - it’s when you try to evaluate all of them at the same time that you actually find out where the source of trouble lies.

What is it about Becoming that is problematic for Grant? A Main Character Concern of Becoming focuses on a Main Character who experiences great conflict because of some growth or transformation in who they are.

I could see maybe Obtaining for the IC, but the Future for the OS - what is it about the Future that is problematic?

The big one though is the Relationship Story - where is the inequity in their relationship relating to the Subconscious???

Same thing with the arguments for the storyform being in the Present - you would have to convincingly argue the IC in Conceiving and the Relationship Story in Conscious.

Overall - the quickest way to find any storyform is to make sure you cover all four Throughlines at the particular level you’re looking at.

1 Like

Thanks Jim! Sorry this is so tricky for me… It’s still not quite clicking yet, because those things actually made sense to me being where they are:

I had thought “Becoming” was a problem for Grant based on the definition in Dramatica. Specifically, the part about how “giving up a part of oneself is always the hardest part of becoming,” since Grant has a problem giving up the part of him that’s a paleontologist (“looks like we’re out of a job… don’t you mean extinct… guess we’ll have to evolve too”), and of course the issues of being open to becoming a father. That seemed to me the crux of his personal problem.

It also made sense to me to put OS concern in the Future because, “the future state of external issues is the subject that is addressed by the story” (everyone is debating and concerned with the Future of JP, whether it will work and open or not–the main debate in the film). Everyone is concerned with, as Dramatica puts it, “achieving a particular state of affairs down the line… and the end is more important than the present, although it still may not justify the means.” (Which I thought was an aspect driven home by Hammond constantly pointing out how he has spared no expense to get to the park ready to open).

For RS, it made sense to me that there’s an inequity in subconscious because Hammond presents Grant with a future that would demand he stop being a “dinosaur” and evolve (both in his career and dealing with Hammond’s kids), while Hammond deals with presenting his delusional idea to an expert, facing the core of his inner drive to make something real, that’s not just a flea circus. Both issues being problematic for their relationship in “Mind” … the “Ma” … “Mental” Space… meditative and/or contemplative. Both characters spending a fair amount of time journeying inward until they hit the inequity at Avoid/Pursue.

It made sense to me because in the end, Grant changes–accepting that he must evolve in his career and being not only open but active in being a parent. While Hammond grows away from the idea of the park–realizing in the melting ice cream scene that he spared no expense to chase a severely flawed idea.

Perhaps I’m looking at Dramatica the wrong way?
Can Dramatica point out where my inequity in Understanding is? Haha :wink:

Thanks for taking the time to help explain this to me!

Something to think about before trying to put the MC in a specific domain is whether he or she is a Do-er or Be-er. Usually, this is easier to figure out, and it narrows down the possibilities by half. When I considered the question, I was unable to find compelling arguments for Grant as Be-er, but it’s fairly easy to see how Grant prefers a Do-er approach in his first scene and has changed to a Be-er in his last.

That being said, there are some attractive options available if Grant is in Psychology, so if you have examples of why you think Grant is a Be-er, I’d love to hear them.

Well, anyone familiar with Dramatica appreciates the difference between Learning and Understanding! :rofl:

The Strategy of familiarizing yourself with films that share the same Domain arrangement (Genre) would be paramount. Reading every single thing you can on the Four Throughlines. I would suggest checking out the Throughlines section on Narrative First.

@Etherbeard clued you in on some of the Prerequisites of the theory—how Be-ers end up in the internal Domains and Do-ers in the external.

The only problem now is overcoming the Preconditions of your current life to open up more and more time to Learn!

1 Like

I rewatched the movie last night and yeah, I do agree that Grant is a Do-er. My previous assessment is getting broken down, but not sure anything’s becoming clearer.

It almost seemed to me that Grant is our MC, but that Hammond is actually the Protagonist, with Malcom playing the dual role of IC and Antagonist. I would guess the production had intended this as well, based on how Hammond and Malcom interact, their clothing choices, etc.

It actually seems that Malcolm is the character that has the most impact on Grant. Right from the first moment they meet, when Malcolm isn’t arguing with and pestering Hammond, he begins a romantic advance toward Ellie–posing as a potential threat to Grant’s main problem of not wanting kids.

After the “oohs” and “aahs” of seeing dinosaurs, Malcolm points out to Alan that he’s gonna become extinct, then goes on to antagonize Hammond in the lunch room.

Then, Malcom again diverts his attention to Ellie, saying he’s gonna ride with her–and ends up giving her a rather intimate demo with the drops of water (Also again antagonizing Hammond, asking if there are, in fact, dinosaurs on the dinosaur tour).

These two motifs continue throughout the film… Malcolm showing an interest in Ellie, demonstrating that not only has kids already and loves them, but that he’s always looking for a future ex-Mrs. Malcom. I’ll admit it’s rather subtle and resolves just before they encounter the T-Rex… but it is there.

After the T-Rex incident, Malcom affects Grant one more time–when Grant admits that Malcolm was right about his theory of life finding a way. There’s some pretty massive symbology going on too, with Grant showing the kids hatched eggs, and earlier too when he and Ellie greet the Triceratops (You ever just listen to the dialogue during that part? It sounds like two parents greeting their newborn).

Malcolm then gets put back with Hammond and their contentious relationship continues, all the way up until he takes over the walkie talkie, guiding Ellie to turn the power back on in the park.

I also have a hunch that in the OS:
Ellie = Emotion
Muldoon = Logic

Grant = MC, Guardian?
Nedry/Dinosaurs = Contagonist

Hammond = Protagonist
Malcolm = Antagonist

Kids = Sidekick
Gennaro = Skeptic

Not sure what story form this would all adhere to, or if it’s complete or not… but after watching the film again with Dramatica in mind. This feels better than what I had thought before.

Could Grant still exist in Psychology under these criteria, if he’s a Do-er?

This is a bit to the side (but not exactly off) topic. But the reason I originally argued in another thread that I felt this movie must be a GAS is because I was looking at the very clear argument the characters are having. Hammond needs approval from Grant, et al. to keep his funding and open the park so he brings them out, tries to show them how awesome and safe the park is, and, after seeing how unsafe (though still pretty awesome, because dinosaurs!) the park is, they decline. Hammond agrees that the park doesn’t need to open. Very clear argument. One that I now figure would be entirely within the OS if this were a complete story.

Running with your request for examples of Grant as Be-er, just for kicks…

A Be-er changes one’s self before changing the world around him, right?

Is being a Be-er something that would change from Be-er to Do-er by the end of the film, or is he ALWAYS gonna be a Be-er even if he goes through a Change by the end?

Devil’s advocate argument for Grant as Be-er:

  1. The first problem Grant encounters is at the dig site. A boy undermines his scientific explanation for why raptors are like birds. Alan chooses to transform himself from mild-mannered scientist into horror-film tormentor of children to teach him a lesson.

  2. Next, he encounters Hammond showing up at his site, and very quickly after learning who he is, he again transforms his approach from barking at Hammond, to schmoozing and acting grateful.

  3. Then, Grant meets Ian Malcolm, a very outspoken type who kind of snarls at Grant’s profession. Instead of defending himself, Grant chooses to remain quiet and Hammond apologizes for Malcolm. Grant also chooses to do nothing when Malcom hits on Ellie.

  4. Next up is when he gets the tour of the inner workings of JP. He sees a major problem in breeding raptors, but doesn’t directly say or do anything about it. He internalizes it. Also in that scene, the machine even steals the egg back from Grant, and the look on Grant’s face shows that he just sits there and takes it.

  5. After this, he joins the others in debate around the lunch table but basically stays quiet the entire time, until the very end when he gives a very non-committal answer, that he doesn’t have any idea what to expect.

  6. Next, the kids are forced upon him and he tries to evade them, allowing Timmy to wax on and on and follow him around, until finally Lex tells him why they’re pestering him, and he just shoots Ellie a knowing look.
    I could see that maybe as “doing,” but it’s so passive and accepting that I wonder if it’s actually being?

  7. The next “problem” is when Malcolm starts moving in on Ellie on the tour, the scene with the water drop, playing with her hair, etc. Instead of telling him to stop hitting on his girlfriend, even after Ellie beckons him to “look at this,” Alan ignores the situation and finds a distraction, noticing the triceratops outside the car.

  8. The next major problem is the T-Rex attack. Grant sits in the car a helluva long time while the kids are being attacked, urging Malcolm to sit still and do nothing so the T-Rex doesn’t see them. It’s not until the T-Rex starts tearing into the car that Grant finally gets a flare and tries warding off the Rex.
    Again in this scene, he covers Lex’s mouth and tells her to sit and do nothing, waiting for the T-Rex to go away. It doesn’t and he ends up being forced off the side of the paddock.

  9. In the jungle with the kids, Alan is presented with the problem of protecting the kids. He seems to do this by changing his nature of disliking children, adapts himself into a fatherly persona, guiding them safely back to the visitor’s center as a parent would.

  10. Finally out of the jungle, back at the Visitor Center, the problem is raptors on the loose coming for them. He does barricade the door, but it’s not doing anything to specifically stop the problem at large. It’s Lex who actually solves the problem on the computer.

  11. The very end is a little, but overall I can see an argument for Be-er… Alan is definitely on defense, rather than offense here. On the run and backing away from the raptors, he really doesn’t DO anything but try to protect Ellie and the kids with his arms—which of course would do nothing against a dual-raptor attack. The T-Rex who comes in to save them is the real Do-er of the problem.

So I dunno… could these things make him a Be-er?

If Grant is a Do-er, then he must be in one of the external Domains, either Situation or Activity.

As a more general response, I agree that Hammond is likely the protagonist. He’s the one pursuing opening the park, and throughout the story he’s asking the others to consider the upsides of the park or why it can still work despite everything that has gone wrong, i.e., “We relied too much on automation. I see that now. Next time…” or later when he points out all the problems Disney World faced when it was trying to open. I also think this explains why Hammond’s so well-developed despite definitely not being the MC and probably not being the IC.

I think the other characters are a bit more difficult to pin down into Dramatica archetypes, either being more complex or even trading hats depending on the situation. Gennaro, for example, is playing skeptic early on, then he’s a total sidekick in the lunch scene as he beams about how much money they’re going to make, then he’s back to skeptic when dealing with the kids. I suspect Malcolm is more in the guardian area than antagonist. He’s definitely conscience, and I’d put the dinosaurs in the antagonist role. Malcolm disagrees with what Hammond has done, but it’s the dinosaurs that actively work against him, and every dino-related catastrophe or death is like them saying “reconsider.”

What is a GAS? Is that shorthand for a certain arrangement of audience appreciations?

Grand argument story.

Yeah, some of those are good examples. At first, I especially liked Grant’s reaction to Hammond upon first meeting him, but as I thought about it, I had to remind myself that Do-er or Be-er represents the MC’s preferred approach. So, in that scene Grant barges into the trailer ready to lay into Hammond, but once he realizes who it is, Grant has no choice but to veer away from his preferred approach.

Now, that’s not meant as a dismissal of any of the other points. I just wanted to illustrate how you have to be careful.

One of the things that changes in a changed Main Character is his/her approach. In fact the character actually changes Domains, moving into whichever Domain is dynamically opposed to the one he/she started in. What this means is that if Grant were a Be-er in Psychology at the beginning of the story, he’d need to be a Do-er in Activity at the end, assuming he’s a changed MC (and that there’s a complete storyform).

I have a question: Is Ellie actually Grant’s girlfriend? I’ve always thought there were some romantic feelings between them, but neither had acted on them. And in the scene when Malcolm asks Grant if they’re together, Grant says “yeah” simply to deter Malcolm, either because Grant wants to be with Ellie himself or because he wants to protect her from Malcolm’s lecherous behavior–or both. Now, I’m wondering.

So, this is what I think we’re seeing here: In the storyform I proposed above, I chose Protection as the problem. This makes the Solution inaction. If that’s correct, then this is the Solution element presenting itself. The way to not get eaten by a T-Rex is to do nothing.

Thank you. I feel pretty silly.

What do you see as Grant’s personal MC problem? My guess it’s supposed to be something along the lines of he doesn’t like kids or he has a theory about dinosaurs and birds, but that’s the best i can come up with.

Is he trying to change himself to be someone who is scary? I take it more like he’s trying to change the kid, to teach him to respect Velociraptors. [quote=“Etherbeard, post:38, topic:1913”]
I feel pretty silly.
[/quote]

Don’t. Now you know and you can tell the next person that asks about!

By process of elimination for how Grant changes by the end of the film, I would think:

  • He doesn’t change to appreciate or use or master his problem with technology.
  • And if anything he remains steadfast and proven about his problem explaining the theory regarding dinosaurs being birds (but no one is really opposing him, other than the kid he scares half to death in the beginning).
  • I feel like his only inequity in the film is not liking or wanting children (and whatever that may broadly stand for).
  • By the end of the film, he seems pretty keen on being open to that idea.

Assuming that is his problem that he changes (which to me makes sense with IC Malcom being more than happy to have kids, loves kids, the more the merrier)… Would that fall under CONSIDER/RECONSIDER?
Or would it be an AVOID/PURSUIT issue? He avoids interacting with children?

I also have a question re: the storyform that assigns Grant to something other than Fixed Attitude.
What would his MC problem for him in another domain?
I’m having a hard time seeing any other issue going on with Grant as MC.
Could it be that the part of JP that’s broken or inconsistent is whether or not he’s a Be-er or Do-er?

Reading through the earlier posts… if the OS isn’t about endorsing or opening the park–what do you think it’s about? Could it be simply whether embracing unproven methods to bring back dinosaurs was/is a good idea, and not about the park itself? That does seem like something everyone is concerned with, even the kids to a degree. I could also see that aligning a bit better with Alan and Hammond’s personal POVs.

The relationship throughline is the emotional heart of the story/argument. In Jurassic Park, that seems to be the relationship between Grant and the children. The most emotional scenes are when they are together – both in the screaming scenes, the annoyance scenes, and the heartwarming scenes. Even Grant’s introduction scene shows how mean he can be when he terrifies the kid at his dig site.

The children’s chaotic/free nature – you never know what they’re going to do next – is what eventually influences Grant’s dependence on order/control. While Malcolm presents the objective argument about the power of chaos/freedom, the children represent the subjective argument of its emotional influence.

When you have a broken storyform, it is difficult to say what the story is, though it is quite easy to say what it MIGHT be since there are many options open to debate – and this thread makes my point.

That said, the one thing we (Melanie and I) know is that it was confirmed to us (by Michael Crichton’s writing partner) that the original version of the book was more along the lines we described in Build a Better Dinosaur, but editorial input moved the book into its final form. I believe we picked up the vestiges of the original intent even though the final expression diluted it, even carried the dilution in the filmed version.

1 Like

First @JohnDusenberry and @Etherbeard, since the official stance is that JP is a broken tale, I figure the use of this thread simply is in looking at what problems might be. I’m not sure if that might do more harm than good in the long run.

Regarding Grants problem, I don’t really know what it would be. Not liking children seems more like a Mind problem than a Psychology problem. Like being prejudiced against kids or something. But since the relationship story is with the kids, that might be part of what should be the RS?

Probably this:

It’s not just being eaten that is a problem. It’s the idea that science wasn’t used carefully, or no one considered whether they should, and no one knows anything about these creatures or how to deal with them and dinosaurs don’t know how to adapt and they will strike back, aggressively if necessary. Just the knowledge that they bred raptors creates conflict (Grants stunned silence and the look in his face when finding out). The source of all of these problems is the existence of living dinosaurs.