Fans of the Jurassic Park franchise will recognize John Hammond as the creator and founder of the titular park.
However, those who have only seen the films and have not read the novels that inspired the film franchise are unaware that John Hammond is very different in the movies than he is in the novels.
The character not only had different personalities across materials, but he also lived different lives.
When filmmakers translate books into films, they frequently add, remove, and change details, and John Hammond is no exception.
The books portrayed Hammond as a greedy capitalist who cared more about the welfare of his dinosaurs than his employees because the former brought him more money.
Meanwhile, the movies showed him to be less of a capitalist and more of a lovable character. But how much of the character was actually changed.
How Was John Hammond Different in the Jurassic Park Books?
In a nutshell, the book version of John Hammond was a very upsetting character that a lot of readers despised. He was the epitome of capitalistic greed – a person who only had his sights set on making profit was willing to violate laws, be they legal or scientific, just to accrue the wealth he wanted. He created Jurassic Park because he thought that having real dinosaurs in today’s time would be a huge hit; however, he died at the hands (or fangs) of his very creations. Not the best way to die.
On the other hand, the film version of John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) did not die after the first film. The survival was interestingly the fact that he was no longer quite of an egocentric man and admitted that his park was a failure, which allowed him to escape disaster, which the ego of his book counterpart would have forbidden. He lived on to be present in the second film, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, where he seemed to have abandoned his capitalistic lifestyle, claiming to be a naturalist instead.
Why It’s A Good Thing Jurassic Park Changed John Hammond So Much
John Hammond dying as food for the Procompsognathus is seen as karmic justice by most of the readers, as it is very ironic that the creatures where he made his living off of, became the cause of his death. However, Hammond found a redemption arc in the films, as he learned a valuable lesson about wealth and capitalism – something he did not live to learn in the books. The change of character also made him more appealing and intriguing as a person, and his works as the creator of the park was more appreciated.
The film showing Hammond in a less negative light was a great choice by allowing the viewers learn more about the park by not killing its creator early. John Hammond living on could send a message to viewers of the possible results of unwatched greed. All in all, this makes the film character a signifier of positive change rather than just a beacon of hate and corrupt morals.
ALSO READ: Is Deirdre Purcell Married? Who Is Her Husband? Complete Info Here!
