Jurassic Park 4...what in the heck are they thinking? - Page 3

Yeah, no problem with Malcolm having a black wife (too bad it didn't work out though, hee!).  But that actress is still NOT believable as his daughter, imo. 

 

I'll recast:

 

Hee hee!

 

 

I guess I don't understand WHY Vanessa Lee Chester was so horribly wrong for the part - in terms of looks, at least.  You can criticize her as a bad actor, but beyond "she was too black", I've not heard any comments that explain why it's so impossible to accept her as biracial...

 

 

I simply don't agree, it doesn't matter to me if they created these animals or not, once they did they became part of nature and no man owns nature IMO, his boasts just got under my skin in a way that made me not like the man.

 

I guess you could say that I've always fallen on the side of Malcolm, I don't agree with Hammond, either, JP should never have happened so I do hold Hammond responsible for his role but at least in his case he was a misguided man with good intentions and he did care about the animals he resurrected and didn't want to see harm come to them.

 

That, to me, is the distinction between Ludlowe and Hammond.
 

 

In the first movie, Hammond was indicted, at least by Malcom.  I'd also think that Hammond's change was not all of a sudden.  At the end of the first movie, when Grant says he won't endorse the park, Hammond says "me too" or something like that.  So he's already changing his thinking.

 

BTW, in the first book

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I don't really have a further explanation. It's just something that takes me out of the movie whenever I see it. Based on her complexion I don't believe that she is the offspring of White Father. I would have expected a child who was lighter skinned, is all.

 

 

So what if you were a dog breeder? Does this mean that they shouldn't be able to sell the puppies they breed. Actually I would argue that InGen had a better argument to ownership of the Dinosaurs than a dog breeder has. For someone to breed dogs, they need a male and a female, put them in the same cage and let them do their thing. That is a natural process. InGen had to find preserved dinosaur blood and develop the technology to clone them, obviously at great expense. But in the end, the dinosaurs (at least the initial ones) were 100% InGen product.

 

As for Ludlowe, all he was trying to do was save a company, which I would imagine employed thousands of people (something Hollywood screenwriters often forget when they scapegoat Capitalists) It's not like they guy was Madoff. Actually, remember, it was Roland who initially wanted to hunt a Male T-Rex (He even waived his fee for the permission to hunt one) But yet he escapes the movie unscathed because he had some 10 second moment of clarity late in the film. The Vince Vaughn character who is guilty of, at the very least, reckless endangerment, if not manslaughter escapes the movie with zero culpability. But it's Ludlowe who falls victim to being eaten alive in what is supposed to be a crowd pleasing death. I'm not trying to say Ludlowe was a nice guy, or wasn't a second rate Hammond. But, he never really did anything wrong or unethical.

Just because a person, a dog breeder, has caused an new life to begin, does not give them total freedom to do as he wishes with the animal.  A dog breeder would be required by law to provide humane conditions for raising the dog.  While it does occur, a breeder raising fighting dogs is breaking the law.  While the laws applying to the dinosaurs are unsure, simply because of where they are located, I think once they have been birthed, natural obligations of humane treatment are incumbent on the "owners."

 

As the song goes, "If I Ruled the World" they would not have unbridled freedom to do anything they want with the dinos.  When it comes to artificially creating life, do you want a for-profit company to have no limits placed on what it can do with the "product?"

 

The movie portrays InGen as a company that sees the dinos as products only.  They exist only to be exploited .  I think most for-profit companies would have a similar viewpoint.

 

Roland did not escape the move morally unscathed, at least in my mind.  He was heart-stricken that his friend was killed.  However, I still imagine that he went on in his career as a big-game hunter.  I'm sure he added some more trophies to his wall.  He's still the guy, who's heart's desire was to kill one of the world's greatest predators, missing from the planet for millions of years.  He still wanted to kill it when there were only, what, 2 of them in world?  I think he's still an asshole.  He just got a scene in which he could be sad.

 

"Honestly, I don't really have a further explanation. It's just something that takes me out of the movie whenever I see it. Based on her complexion I don't believe that she is the offspring of White Father. I would have expected a child who was lighter skinned, is all."

 

We've already explained that isn't the way that genetics work.  I told a friend about this, and she mentioned a woman she knows who is black, married a white man of Scandinavian descent, and their daughter is a carbon copy of the father.  Blue eyes, blonde hair, light skin.  People assume the mother is the girl's nanny.

^ There are extreme cases of that in both directions. My mother was a nurse in a hospital delivery room for years. A few decades ago a black couple had twin girls. One was clearly black, but the other looked white -- pale complexion, blond hair, light eyes, not albino. The husband thought his wife had had an affair. Testing later proved he was the father of both girls, but not until serious damage had been done to the marriage.

 

On the flip side, there have been white couples that give birth to a seemingly black baby, Sandra Laing in apartheid South Africa being the most well known and tragic example. On the US remake of "Shameless", the black Gallagher son turns out to be the biological son of two white parents owing to an affair Frank's grandmother or greatgrandmother had that he was the biological result of.

 

In the first case, it's because both black parents had a white ancestor somewhere up the family tree, and the stars aligned so to be speak with out of genetic random chance in one of the twin girls. In the second case, it's because one or both of the white parents had a black ancestor somewhere up the family tree, and those dormant genes aligned out of random genetic chance to be more obvious.

Even if you didn't believe the genetics, why couldn't you just assume the child was adopted?

 

If you're curious about it, that's good. You were suppose to be curious, the film was playing on Malcolm's backstory from the first film where he said he had tons of kids and was always looking for his next future ex-wife. It would have just made it awkward if they had tried to explain it.

 

I did mention in one of my posts that adoption was a possibility, but since it was never brought up, I just took it at face value that she was supposed to be his biological kid, especially since Malcolm said he had a few kids in the first movie

To be fair, I don't think any parent goes around explaining to people why the skin color of their child doesn't quite match up to their own.

I mean, take a look a Sandra Bullock's child. She's pale. He's dark-skinned. But that's her kid. I see "The Lost World" in the same vein.

I guess I do understand your viewpoint in the sense that it might be visually jarring to see a white parent with a black child--especially as 99% of movies don't touch topics of race or adoption in this manner (especially movies that aren't specifically about race or adoption).

But at the end of the day, it is what it is. Some white parents have black children.

To me, it's not that at all. I have no problem beliving that Malcolm could have fathered a child with a Black woman, I just find it unlikley that the offspring would have as dark of a complexion as the actress they used for the part did. It's just one of the (many) things that takes me out of the movie a bit.

It might have been more jarring to have a daughter that looked like Jeff Goldblum.

That's not at all unlikely in real life, though.

"I just find it unlikley that the offspring would have as dark of a complexion as the actress they used for the part did."

This is a ridiculous statement, considering that the mother is never shown. It sounds like you're still expecting a child's complexion to be a mixture of both parents (white father plus black mother equals a brown child). We've already explained that's not how genes work. What the movie represents is fully within the capability of a white person having a child with a black person.

woww that great !!! :D

Ok, this has been going back and forth for awhile. I'm not a geneticist, so I can't claim to know exactly what the offspring of a mixed race couple would come out looking like (although by default, I would typically expect a mix of the two parents). It's just something that stood out a bit when I see the movie. That's all.