Books to Movies: Clancy & Crichton, How to Handle Technical Information

I primarily like Jurassic Park

for Neill and the gentle music.

From A-Z List 2, I chose Crichton and Clancy. 

I read Crichton's Jurassic Park and parts of Clancy's Hunt for Red October around the same time their movies came out. 

The problem: How does a scriptwriters translate highly technical material to the screen?

The Hunt for Red October is more technical than Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park, the book, does include more exposition on evolution and mathematics than in the movie. However, it is mostly an action book and was turned into a mostly action film.

Regarding the movie, the explanation for how the dinosaurs came about is cutely and effectively presented by the 1950s-style film during the "ride" (gotta keep things moving!). And the mathematician's explanation of chaos theory is surprisingly straightforward and effectively used throughout the film. That is, small events (such as the sign to the boat pointing in two different directions) lead to larger ones, the largest unforeseen consequence being the dinosaur eggs ("life finds a way"). 

Moreover, the movie makes clear that the grandfather, played by Richard Attenborough, is the quintessential arrogant Dr. Frankenstein, a man whose hubris--and rush to prove his vision--is largely responsible for most of the conflicts. The animals, dinosaurs, are simply obeying natural instincts (though I love how T-Rex is the hero in the end). The script pulls back from holding the grandfather fully responsible, likely to achieve a happy ending. 

The Hunt for Red October, which I discuss in more depth here, was popular before its movie, in part because of the highly technical approach. I knew at least one reader who told me the movie didn't live up to the book, precisely because it was turned into a purely action film--and because it didn't star Harrison Ford, as later Jack Ryan movies did. 

I think the movie does a remarkably good job but then I was far less invested in the technical aspect. But I think the scriptwriters took the right approach. Technical information is conveyed in scenes where Ryan collects information. And it remains fairly limited--not, How was the entire submarine constructed? But, What's up with these doors?

When faced with highly technical material that could derail a scene or character or entire movie, the most successful approach appears to be to either (1) present the "explanations" upfront, then just let them be, as in The Matrix (the first movie) or (2) stick to the main character's point of view, immediate problem, and immediate conflict. 

That is, the most successful approach is to stay focused! The viewer will tolerate a tremendous amount of blah-blah-blah (see Star Trek and every mystery show ever) if the characters don't swerve too far off-topic--if the blah-blah-blah doesn't become the center instead of the plot.