Well pretty much everything else Michael Chricton wrote was straight sci fi and Jurrasic Park concerns a lot of science topics.
I think pretty much the only reason you said drama was of the way Spielberg filmed it and John Williams scored it. If you put the focus on John Hammonds personal feelings it feels like a drama. If you read the synopsis and hear it is about a theme park where people are trapped and get eaten by dinosaurs youĀ“d say itĀ“s horror.
I think itās more the fact it was billed as a family film. Being Spielberg itās more character-focused than youād expect from that synopsis (and those are pretty typical, human characters).
And I mean that from an instinctive first impression perspective - not from analysing a film deeply and coming to a different conclusion. Thatās kind of how genres work - itās the initial, overriding feel.
True, but funnily enough I clearly remember one newscaster on the evening news over here (why they had it even on there I donĀ“t remember) calling it ādefinitely not a movie suitable for children!ā
Personally I never was really sure how to classify Jurrasic Park. I think it kinda defies many generic labels (or transcends them rather).
Oh lol, I saw that a million years (um, a little over a decade?) a go.
Hmmā¦ it feels superficially ārealisticā but the way heās able to do everything he does in the movie and the ending in particular make him feel a lot like Henry Bowers ā of course he wasnāt release until '86, so maybe itās the other way around.
It was always horror / sci-fi to me, both genres belong together. Iām sure it was never filmed as a āfamily movieā, but perhaps marketing department thought otherwise. Take the science element away and Itās not much different from Jaws.
It has a much bigger focus on the child characters however than Jaws (where there is really only one scene, you know where theyĀ“re making faces) and that story arc where Alan Grant grows to like children.
The thing is, good sci-fi is also simply good X. Iām not sure if Iād call that transcending genres, but it suffices.
As far as Iām concerned, Alien is the best slasher movie ever made. You might argue itās missing some vital tropes, but to me those tropes are the obnoxious part of the slasher genre. (E.g., promiscuity is punished, damsel in distress.) But Alien is also a top tier creature flick.
Besides that, I think that the popular definition of sci-fi leans a lot more toward the broader science-fantasy and/or the narrower (?) space sci-fi, so itās hardly the marketing departmentās fault that Jurassic Park doesnāt necessarily āfeelā like sci-fi to some.
I watched Dracula (1979) last night and it was a total snooze-fest.
I think Night of the Living Dead Part II is my favorite horror film. It has so many ridiculous and quotable lines, but also scared the crap out of me as a kid.
Alien is not only a strong slasher in space (I think they even advertised it as Halloween in space) it is also very Lovecraftian.
Appearently the original intent was for Ripley and Dallas to have an affair, which is only hinted at in the final version.
The book is very heavy on the science aspect. Heavy enough that youĀ“d consider it sci fi. It also reads more like a horror novel than the movie feels like a horror film. It really has a lot to do how Spielberg had changed as a director since Jaws I think. Ten or 15 years earlier the film might have had an entirely different tone.
Ugghh, that one was the first, yes! Still havenĀ“t seen the Jack Palance one, canĀ“t imagine that to be any better, though.
Not sure what you are refering to exactly? Do you mean Return Of The Living Dead?
ThatĀ“s also one of my favourites of all time. So much fun!