MovieChat Forums > Path of Destruction (2005) Discussion > Crichton Rip-Off

Crichton Rip-Off

posted 19 years ago by jereid27
10 replies | jump to latest

Has anyone here read Michael Crichtons' "Prey"? This movie could not be more of a rip-off of the book. I havent seen Crichtons name attached to the project at all. Although if I was Crichton I would not want my name attached to a movie starring Danica "Winny Cooper" McKellar and David "Every Sci-FI Channel Original" Keith.

Here is the synopsis of Crichtons book for all who havent read it. BTW the book was excellent.

In the Nevada desert, an experiment has gone horribly wrong. A cloud of nanoparticles — micro-robots — has escaped from the laboratory. This cloud is self-sustaining and self-reproducing. It is intelligent and learns from experience. For all practical purposes, it is alive.

It has been programmed as a predator. It is evolving swiftly, becoming more deadly with each passing hour.

Every attempt to destroy it has failed.

And we are the prey.

[–] sledge06 19 years ago

Thank God I'm not the only one who saw this! I haven't seen the movie itself, and I really don't intend to, but come on! How much more obvious does it have to be? What's next sci-fi author rip-off? "Dino-Clone Amusement Garden"? How about "Spaceship Soldiers"? "African Monkey Jungle"? "Pegesus Germs"? No! I've got it! "Big Round Underwater Thing"!!!

[–] thegirl99_2000 19 years ago

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Although I have to admit the first time I watched the preview my immediate thought was maybe this was supposed to be some kind of sequel to "The Langoliers" (Stephen King).

[–] comedictragedy 19 years ago

thank you so much for noticing this as well, I saw it on sci fi channel and checked out the info, I decided to watch it a little while to see if it was a rip off and yah, it definately is, sure make it a tiny bit different but the general details and a lot of lines are an exact match to Prey. I wonder if it says anything about it on Sci- Fi's website...

[–] mordavus 19 years ago

I've never seen/read Prey but the first thought that came to mind was Stephen King's langoliers.

[–] michaela7 19 years ago

I also thought of "Prey," but in "Prey," if I remember correctly, the nanites are stopped and don't affect a widespread area. This movie would cover what would happen if it was worst case scenario. I agree that it does appear that they borrowed a lot, but unless it has a huge number of identical plot lines, then it really isn't a copy. That would be like saying every movie dealing with a killing-all-mankind virus is a rip off of "Andromeda Strain" or every movie about dinosaurs in present time is a rip off of "Jurassic Park." Although all the movies that borrow general story lines from other sources seem to pale in comparison to the real deal.

[–] laynekasprzyk-1 19 years ago

prey was a great book, i picked it up, and didnt put it down till i was done, and its exactly what i thought about when i saw this movie

[–] MadAboutMadAboutYou 19 years ago

I've read prey 3 times now, and I have to say that if this movie was meant to be a rip off, they did a worse adaptation of Crichton than The Lost World. And that is saying something. This movie sucked. Prey was an amazing novel, and it seems to me that they actually combined Prey with State of Fear with the Eco-Terrorists and blowing up things in the anarctic causing a global disaster.

[–] McJunker 18 years ago

Amen, brother. The moment I saw this monstrosity, and read the summary, I knew it was a wannabe Prey. I thought when I first read the book, "wow, this would make a great movie." It's a darn shame that the Sci-Fi channel got to it first.

Jeez, it sucked.

The makers should be ashamed.

[–] seraphim-19 18 years ago

What you have to keep in mind is that a lot of the Sci Fi movies take a plot that's already being worked on and do their own spinoff. Sometimes it only bears a passing resemblance to the original. Oddly enough, in the case of movies like "Python" they sometimes outclass the original (not that outclassing a movie like "Anaconda" is any great feet).

The movies they make are really for people who like to watch lower-quality movies... they're nearly tailored to that crowd. Think of the fans of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. These movies are almost ideal for a situation like that.

Sci Fi Horror movies should be thought of as comedies.... not so much Horror ovies.

[–] roguewarcraftwedge 17 years ago

Finally! Someone understands the Sci-Fi channel! All I ever see is 'Sci-Fi sucks', and 'This movie was god-awful!'. Of course they are. The whole point of the movie is to waste time and make money. I've watched almost every single Sci-Fi original movie in existance, and I've seen at least half of them more than twice. They aren't good at all, but hey! Wake up, ladz! Peter Jackson had 3 years and a huge budget. Sci-Fi has 5 months (maybe) and a tiny budget. Get with it, people. Prepare for the worst, and you'll enjoy the movie. Prepare for an average, movie-theater-like 2 hours, and the movie'll suck.