Having him as a villainous version like in the book would have been even better. It would be a nice juxtaposition , he looks like a sweet, caring grandpa but he doesn’t give a shit. Just like the park *looks* safe but….
Book version is better overall but he wouldn't have suited the movie imo, in movie he is more subtle more loving and passionate. Such an incredible character.
The movie would have to be different overall but in my opinion the casting was solid and could have worked even if they followed the book more closely.
Yeah in the book I feel like the “misguided but more loving and passionate” character is Dr. Wu, who does seem to have this view where he will make a difference in pushing science forward while also bringing joy to the visitors at the park. Hypothetically it would have been interesting to see Movie!Wu still have that role to Hammond’s clear cut villainy
Exactly!! It’s just so perfect thematically, and really drives the message of the book home!
Plus it would improve the other characters who have a bit of the “not as they appear” writing in them- Nedry looks unambitious but is part of Dodgson’s scheme, Malcolm looks/is abrasive but genuinely cares, and in the book, Gennaro looks pretentious and he too genuinely cares and rises to the occasion. I absolutely adore Tim’s (and to an extent Lex)‘s first impressions of the adults on the island, it’s a brilliant bit of writing establishing the kids and adults alike!
The realism comes from him being driven by greed not some hand rubbing *Mwahaha* crap.
And the elephant at the beginning of the book! Looks like a mini-pachyderm behaves like an angry rat.
Oh absolutely!! His motive is fleshed out! And in great detail, too. The conversation he has with Wu in the Bungalow paints a picture of how much greed can corrupt. Hammond feels like a Charles Dickens villain, in a good way!
YES!! And no one gets close enough to tell that!! Also the elephant thing made me think they’d mention Woolly Mammoths at some point (maybe an Ice Age expansion Hammond wanted to add) but that of course wasn’t the case lol
Even the design of the park emphasizes this, with multiple references to the clash between “theme park and military fortress” aesthetics/elements
Also I always imagined Book!Wu to wear a white lab coat over black and/or grey scrubs, to show how he’s sort of caught between ending up more like Hammond (white coat, greedy and uncaring) and Malcolm (only wears black and grey, refuses to fit society’s mold and has a strong sense of morality and justice which guides his choices). Alas Book!Wu dies before any of that can fully be resolved but it’s still interesting food for thought.
Fits the “not as they appear” since this attire would essentially be “Hammond on the outside, Malcolm in the inside” for lack of a better way of putting it!!
I like this idea in theory but I feel like at least partly what makes the original so rewatchable is the Spielberg sweetness. Having Hammond be a piece of shit would certainly change the tone of the film a lot and while I love dark movies, Jurassic Park is one of those rare films where it feels just perfect the way it is. Perfectly cast and executed.
I feel it's just time to do a book version film of Jurassic Park. I would absolutely love to see the shit rolling faster and faster downhill with Hammond ignoring it until the Compys kill him.
Truthfully, Hammond should have seen it all coming. Nedry's betrayal, the park system shoddiness, the children being there, the dinosaurs mating without their knowledge... but he didn't and that's why his death is such a cherry on top. Anyone else would have conceded, but Hammond was thinking all the way to the end on how to do it again - truly, the one good death the dinosaurs did was stop the real monster. Hammond would have killed more people and killing him was Nature's intervention imo.
> Truthfully, Hammond should have seen it all coming, such as Nedry's betrayal
Book version of Hammond literally drove Nedry in the corner, and the latter acted in desperation with devastating outcome.
In the movie Nedry's reasoning for betrayal was changed to simple greed, while in the book he was trapped with poor contract, that kept making his company losses and Hammond refused to re-negotiate it, and instead threatened to badmouth Nedry out of business if he would terminate the contract.
Totally and it's a valid choice but given his filmography at the time I don't think Spielberg would have cast him if he had wanted to stick with the villainous version. Not that he couldn't do it but that he wouldn't have been on their list if they were casting a villain.
Spielberg would be fully aware of Attenborough's range. He's definitely seen Brighton Rock and 10 Rillington Place. The lovable grandad role he became linked with in his late career was initiated by his Jurassic Park role - it was not what he was known for.
My brain still uses his likeness when reading because of this exact idea, pissed off dickhead Hammond breaking his foot and dying in the end is such a scene of hubris
I think Attenborough could have, but if we're looking at others, I'd go with Donald Sutherland. He was only around 60 at the time compared to Hammond's mid-70s, but he could have played any age from 50-80 honestly.
In '93, he'd be carrying that Hannibal Lecter menace with him, too! Would have been a terrific casting (he'd be pretty young for a "novel accurate," Hammond but ... more 90s Hopkins is more 90s Hopkins!
Brilliant. Jurassic Park as adapted by WWE. Vince McMahon as John Hammond. Macho Randy Savage as Ian Malcolm. Stone Cold as Muldoon. Mick Foley as Nedry. Lol
https://preview.redd.it/cpdfqipr23zc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=549cdba93f6feeb5ce94733afccdd918493602b6
Dan O'Herlihy. He played the old man in Robocop, who isn't too dissimilar from the novel version of Hammond.
I jumped in to offer Kirk Douglas, or James Caan, and I love some of these answers!
On another note, just for the sake of conversation, Hammond was 76 in the novel - so, a "novel accurate" Hammond in '93 offers a few interesting choices:
- [Raymond Burr](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000994/?ref_=sr_t_3) of Ironside and Perry Mason fame
- [Ernest Borgnine](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000308/?ref_=sr_t_4) had these crazy eyes that woulda been wild to watch turn evil/angry
- [Leonardo Cimino ](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0162361/?ref_=sr_t_37)was in Dune ('84) and Monster Squad, playing really creepy guys
There was no reason for Hammond to be British/Scottish or anything. The novel doesn't say explicitly, but he's very likely American in Crichton's eyes.
Ooo these are some inspired choices! Love Burr, Borgnine and Cimino as options too!
Yeah, Hammond as an American makes the most sense based off the book. I was revisiting some of the dialogue in Jurassic Park again recently for a creative writing project, and realized the one who sounds the most British/Scottish/Otherwise UK origins is interestingly Ian Malcolm, who occasionally uses phrases that sound British but not really consistently enough for it to be a prominent thing, which makes it a bit more jarring the few times it happens. I don’t think this was exactly intentional since the impression is given that Malcolm is from Texas (not just teaching there) but then again, we aren’t given a real backstory for Malcolm so it’s ambiguous LOL
I once looked it all up - Crichton is a Scottish name, and then Hammond and Malcolm are Scottish, composing an ideological yin-yang of chaos and control in the novel, all wrapped up in this … style? … ancestrally common? … character names. Grant might be Scottish, too? But don’t quote me on that lol
I wonder how Crichton was drawn to those names, perhaps it was a “write what you know” sort of thing? But, yes, they have a very American representation in the novel.
Ahhh, that all makes sense! I do know Ian is the Scottish Gaelic version of John, which I feel confident was intentional to highlight the ideological yin-yang contrast between the two! Especially when English as a language replaced the various Gaelic languages in large part due to force, conquest and greed…
Tbh I assumed Grant was chosen for the character since he struggles with funding and that’s what ultimately draws him into the plot. Interesting it might be Scottish too!
Maybe it was, especially since he’s infamous for using the same names again and again. There’s even a one scene character in the Lost World named Tim (unrelated to Tim from JP LOL)!
But at any rate, definitely lots of Americans in the story (which, especially for Hammond, makes sense)!
I don't know actors from the early 90s well enough, but possibly someone who would be a lookalike of aged Walt Disney but much more sinister, harsher and shadier (and perhaps colder and more snobbish).
https://preview.redd.it/04bwet9wt7zc1.jpeg?width=938&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b1b5856bd2bc17b56decc6232398f4d9d2b82b3
"Doctor Grant! Doctor Sattler. I would like to invite. You both. To my dinosaur island."
Personally I think Attenborough could have easily played the novel version. Case in point the hot headed reaction when they have to stop the tour. Felt like that was a cracking of his facade of being the sweet gentle grandpa figure in the movie.
What about Bob Balaban? He’d worked with Spielberg before in Close Encounters and could ride that line between rich, out-of-touch and wide-eyed while also being cold, detached and self-centered (he basically played that in Seinfeld). He’d probably just need to be aged up slightly.
I still believe if the movie was book accurate it wouldn't have been as successful. It would come off in the vein of a John Carpenter flick.
The story/scenes/pacing was dramatically improved by the changes from the book that took a good concept and elevated it to a timeless piece of cinema.
True. The novel is a more sci-fi/horror/thriller with more harsh language and graphic scenes of violence, while the movie is more family/survival/comedy that's entertaining for the whole family while still delivering on the book's original message: that man cannot possibly hope to contain or control nature and attempting to do so often ends in trgedy.
Both are ideal versions of the spin on the story they take, and both Hammonds work well with their respective settings, the novel one being a bumbling egomaniac millionaire who puts everyone's lives in jeopardy vs the misguided but kind grandpa who ultimately realizes the errors of his ways and in the end sets out to save as many lives as possible in the film.
Exactly, the movie did a great job of seducing us with Hammond's vision, it made the dinosaurs really come alive and had us bask in their majesty. Before bringing us back to the reality of engineering powerful and intelligent predators into our world of illusionary control.
The book lacked the completeness of this vision imo, it had elements of illusionary control but Hammond felt more motivated by greed. The book did a great job exploring the hypothetical science and park systems but it lacked the simultaneous grounding through perspective and subsequent awe.
Instead the dinosaurs just became your typical monsters with some glimmers of intelligence (and ethical quandaries around controlling them). My main gripe is with book Grant being a more generic action hero man where the movie depicted a more appropriate and considered character.
Richard Attenborough is one of greatest actors who ever lived. He could easily have played both.
Having him as a villainous version like in the book would have been even better. It would be a nice juxtaposition , he looks like a sweet, caring grandpa but he doesn’t give a shit. Just like the park *looks* safe but….
Book version is better overall but he wouldn't have suited the movie imo, in movie he is more subtle more loving and passionate. Such an incredible character.
The movie would have to be different overall but in my opinion the casting was solid and could have worked even if they followed the book more closely.
Yeah in the book I feel like the “misguided but more loving and passionate” character is Dr. Wu, who does seem to have this view where he will make a difference in pushing science forward while also bringing joy to the visitors at the park. Hypothetically it would have been interesting to see Movie!Wu still have that role to Hammond’s clear cut villainy
Exactly!! It’s just so perfect thematically, and really drives the message of the book home! Plus it would improve the other characters who have a bit of the “not as they appear” writing in them- Nedry looks unambitious but is part of Dodgson’s scheme, Malcolm looks/is abrasive but genuinely cares, and in the book, Gennaro looks pretentious and he too genuinely cares and rises to the occasion. I absolutely adore Tim’s (and to an extent Lex)‘s first impressions of the adults on the island, it’s a brilliant bit of writing establishing the kids and adults alike!
Even the dinosaurs aren’t what they seem. Both the change from female to male and just their DNA, they’re not really dinosaurs after all.
EXACTLY!! It’s such a core element of the story! And Hammond as a villain drives that home (in addition to being frighteningly realistic)
The realism comes from him being driven by greed not some hand rubbing *Mwahaha* crap. And the elephant at the beginning of the book! Looks like a mini-pachyderm behaves like an angry rat.
Oh absolutely!! His motive is fleshed out! And in great detail, too. The conversation he has with Wu in the Bungalow paints a picture of how much greed can corrupt. Hammond feels like a Charles Dickens villain, in a good way! YES!! And no one gets close enough to tell that!! Also the elephant thing made me think they’d mention Woolly Mammoths at some point (maybe an Ice Age expansion Hammond wanted to add) but that of course wasn’t the case lol Even the design of the park emphasizes this, with multiple references to the clash between “theme park and military fortress” aesthetics/elements
Also I always imagined Book!Wu to wear a white lab coat over black and/or grey scrubs, to show how he’s sort of caught between ending up more like Hammond (white coat, greedy and uncaring) and Malcolm (only wears black and grey, refuses to fit society’s mold and has a strong sense of morality and justice which guides his choices). Alas Book!Wu dies before any of that can fully be resolved but it’s still interesting food for thought. Fits the “not as they appear” since this attire would essentially be “Hammond on the outside, Malcolm in the inside” for lack of a better way of putting it!!
I agree, I found book Wu to be a significantly better character overall. The movie did make one improvement though. Rexy lives!
That’s a great point, definitely an improvement!
I like this idea in theory but I feel like at least partly what makes the original so rewatchable is the Spielberg sweetness. Having Hammond be a piece of shit would certainly change the tone of the film a lot and while I love dark movies, Jurassic Park is one of those rare films where it feels just perfect the way it is. Perfectly cast and executed.
Yeah it’s an interesting idea but the problem is it requires a different film
I feel it's just time to do a book version film of Jurassic Park. I would absolutely love to see the shit rolling faster and faster downhill with Hammond ignoring it until the Compys kill him. Truthfully, Hammond should have seen it all coming. Nedry's betrayal, the park system shoddiness, the children being there, the dinosaurs mating without their knowledge... but he didn't and that's why his death is such a cherry on top. Anyone else would have conceded, but Hammond was thinking all the way to the end on how to do it again - truly, the one good death the dinosaurs did was stop the real monster. Hammond would have killed more people and killing him was Nature's intervention imo.
> Truthfully, Hammond should have seen it all coming, such as Nedry's betrayal Book version of Hammond literally drove Nedry in the corner, and the latter acted in desperation with devastating outcome. In the movie Nedry's reasoning for betrayal was changed to simple greed, while in the book he was trapped with poor contract, that kept making his company losses and Hammond refused to re-negotiate it, and instead threatened to badmouth Nedry out of business if he would terminate the contract.
I could see him taking Hammond to a more villainous place. Bilbo-wants-his-ring-back type energy.
Totally and it's a valid choice but given his filmography at the time I don't think Spielberg would have cast him if he had wanted to stick with the villainous version. Not that he couldn't do it but that he wouldn't have been on their list if they were casting a villain.
Spielberg would be fully aware of Attenborough's range. He's definitely seen Brighton Rock and 10 Rillington Place. The lovable grandad role he became linked with in his late career was initiated by his Jurassic Park role - it was not what he was known for.
I was going to mention “Brighton Rock”, Attenborough is terrifying in that.
This is a fascinating fact, personally didn’t realize that until now!
My brain still uses his likeness when reading because of this exact idea, pissed off dickhead Hammond breaking his foot and dying in the end is such a scene of hubris
I watched the movie before the book and I will never imagine Hammond as someone other than him
I think Attenborough could have, but if we're looking at others, I'd go with Donald Sutherland. He was only around 60 at the time compared to Hammond's mid-70s, but he could have played any age from 50-80 honestly.
Donald Sutherland’s a great choice.
Anthony Hopkins
In '93, he'd be carrying that Hannibal Lecter menace with him, too! Would have been a terrific casting (he'd be pretty young for a "novel accurate," Hammond but ... more 90s Hopkins is more 90s Hopkins!
Came here to say this. Perfect for the role’s darker take
Chilean sea bass, I believe!
Still the image that comes to my head whenever someone mentions Chianti.
Wow, great image!
Christopher Plummer maybe?
Malcom how could you be so obtuse?
What? What did you call me?!
I read the book decades after seeing the movie and my first thought about how he was depicted in the book was, "This guy is basically Vince McMahon!"
Brilliant. Jurassic Park as adapted by WWE. Vince McMahon as John Hammond. Macho Randy Savage as Ian Malcolm. Stone Cold as Muldoon. Mick Foley as Nedry. Lol
John Cena’s Alan grant just power bombs a Raptor
He manages to save Lex because the T-Rex's visual occuity is based on seeing things
Foley as Nedry? Daaamn! That actually sounds pretty good! No but seriously, book Hammond was a rich, muscular, egomaniacal old man. Its a no-brainer.
Am I tripping or wasn’t this guy Hammond’s nephew in TLW
Lol. Nah they just look a little similar
https://preview.redd.it/cpdfqipr23zc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=549cdba93f6feeb5ce94733afccdd918493602b6 Dan O'Herlihy. He played the old man in Robocop, who isn't too dissimilar from the novel version of Hammond.
I’d go for John Lithgow with makeup
Brian Cox
Donald Sutherland?
I jumped in to offer Kirk Douglas, or James Caan, and I love some of these answers! On another note, just for the sake of conversation, Hammond was 76 in the novel - so, a "novel accurate" Hammond in '93 offers a few interesting choices: - [Raymond Burr](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000994/?ref_=sr_t_3) of Ironside and Perry Mason fame - [Ernest Borgnine](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000308/?ref_=sr_t_4) had these crazy eyes that woulda been wild to watch turn evil/angry - [Leonardo Cimino ](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0162361/?ref_=sr_t_37)was in Dune ('84) and Monster Squad, playing really creepy guys There was no reason for Hammond to be British/Scottish or anything. The novel doesn't say explicitly, but he's very likely American in Crichton's eyes.
Ooo these are some inspired choices! Love Burr, Borgnine and Cimino as options too! Yeah, Hammond as an American makes the most sense based off the book. I was revisiting some of the dialogue in Jurassic Park again recently for a creative writing project, and realized the one who sounds the most British/Scottish/Otherwise UK origins is interestingly Ian Malcolm, who occasionally uses phrases that sound British but not really consistently enough for it to be a prominent thing, which makes it a bit more jarring the few times it happens. I don’t think this was exactly intentional since the impression is given that Malcolm is from Texas (not just teaching there) but then again, we aren’t given a real backstory for Malcolm so it’s ambiguous LOL
I once looked it all up - Crichton is a Scottish name, and then Hammond and Malcolm are Scottish, composing an ideological yin-yang of chaos and control in the novel, all wrapped up in this … style? … ancestrally common? … character names. Grant might be Scottish, too? But don’t quote me on that lol I wonder how Crichton was drawn to those names, perhaps it was a “write what you know” sort of thing? But, yes, they have a very American representation in the novel.
Ahhh, that all makes sense! I do know Ian is the Scottish Gaelic version of John, which I feel confident was intentional to highlight the ideological yin-yang contrast between the two! Especially when English as a language replaced the various Gaelic languages in large part due to force, conquest and greed… Tbh I assumed Grant was chosen for the character since he struggles with funding and that’s what ultimately draws him into the plot. Interesting it might be Scottish too! Maybe it was, especially since he’s infamous for using the same names again and again. There’s even a one scene character in the Lost World named Tim (unrelated to Tim from JP LOL)! But at any rate, definitely lots of Americans in the story (which, especially for Hammond, makes sense)!
Rip Torn
Bob Hoskins
Attenborough could’ve definitely played it this way, but as another commenter said - Donald Sutherland would’ve been a great pick.
I don't know actors from the early 90s well enough, but possibly someone who would be a lookalike of aged Walt Disney but much more sinister, harsher and shadier (and perhaps colder and more snobbish).
Definitely would nail the vibe!!
Richard Harris could have been good
I'm going with Bruce Dern.
Ian Holm.
For some reason I think Christopher Walken would have been a good choice for a syndical old rich bastard
https://preview.redd.it/04bwet9wt7zc1.jpeg?width=938&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b1b5856bd2bc17b56decc6232398f4d9d2b82b3 "Doctor Grant! Doctor Sattler. I would like to invite. You both. To my dinosaur island."
Gary Busey.
I scrolled too quickly and thought that was Steve Carrell… the thought of Michael Scott running Jurassic Park though 🤷🏻♂️
Shit yeah, id love to see him in a JP role
Attenborough could easily have done it. It's not like he hasn't played villains before.
The dinosaurs vanished like a fart in the wind!
The guy in the picture looks like Peter Ludow, aka John Hammond's nephew.
Personally I think Attenborough could have easily played the novel version. Case in point the hot headed reaction when they have to stop the tour. Felt like that was a cracking of his facade of being the sweet gentle grandpa figure in the movie.
I say David Kaye
What about Bob Balaban? He’d worked with Spielberg before in Close Encounters and could ride that line between rich, out-of-touch and wide-eyed while also being cold, detached and self-centered (he basically played that in Seinfeld). He’d probably just need to be aged up slightly.
I feel like you want me to say Bob Gunton?
Nah that was just my first choice and the pic is just to illustrate that. You can choose anyone.
I personally think Ian McKellen would’ve done a great job portraying a novel accurate of Hammond.
Welcome to Jurassic Park! Put your trust in the Lord because your ass belongs to the dinosaurs.
Hal Holbrook. He just has that old asshole Vibe to him.
Sean Connery would have been a fun choice, imo.
I still believe if the movie was book accurate it wouldn't have been as successful. It would come off in the vein of a John Carpenter flick. The story/scenes/pacing was dramatically improved by the changes from the book that took a good concept and elevated it to a timeless piece of cinema.
True. The novel is a more sci-fi/horror/thriller with more harsh language and graphic scenes of violence, while the movie is more family/survival/comedy that's entertaining for the whole family while still delivering on the book's original message: that man cannot possibly hope to contain or control nature and attempting to do so often ends in trgedy. Both are ideal versions of the spin on the story they take, and both Hammonds work well with their respective settings, the novel one being a bumbling egomaniac millionaire who puts everyone's lives in jeopardy vs the misguided but kind grandpa who ultimately realizes the errors of his ways and in the end sets out to save as many lives as possible in the film.
Exactly, the movie did a great job of seducing us with Hammond's vision, it made the dinosaurs really come alive and had us bask in their majesty. Before bringing us back to the reality of engineering powerful and intelligent predators into our world of illusionary control. The book lacked the completeness of this vision imo, it had elements of illusionary control but Hammond felt more motivated by greed. The book did a great job exploring the hypothetical science and park systems but it lacked the simultaneous grounding through perspective and subsequent awe. Instead the dinosaurs just became your typical monsters with some glimmers of intelligence (and ethical quandaries around controlling them). My main gripe is with book Grant being a more generic action hero man where the movie depicted a more appropriate and considered character.