User blog comment:BastionMonk/How bad was Peter Ludlow?/@comment-5870856-20130523233623/@comment-6493791-20130524001602

Ludlow was indeed made to replace Lewis Dodgson from the novel, who was MUCH more villainous than Ludlow was, attempting to kill Sarah Harding, not caring when his assistant and loyal partner, Howard King, was killed, nor George Baselton, another good collegue. However, he also was ment to be the side of Hammond not shown in the first film, but in the first book. In the novel, John Alfred Hammond was a brilliant venture capitalist and business man, but he was more concerned with his creations and the success and fame of making money and profit. As he was intended to be the antagonist of the first book, Hammond still has some concerning and human qualities, eventually seeing his flaws near the end, but blaming the wrong people for it. Personally, I never saw him as an antagonist, but that was his place. Does that mean he is one? Not necessarily. My point is, whether a character is intended to be a villain or not does not have to make them that, if the viewer sees reason. It is all really about perspective of the situation. If you want to see Ludlow as a villain, so be it. But that does not mean he was evil for wanting money, power, and fame. Lots of people want that and will work hard to get it. As for him not caring for casualties, I somewhat disagree. People take things in all different ways. I'm sure that he felt sorrow, and sadness for the allies he lost, and intended to give the surviving mercenaries and all of their families a generous compensation, even if that didn't make up for it. As for Ajay, he was very pre-occupied with other conditions, as he had much work to do within the next few hours and felt somewhat shocked about what happened; for all he knew, the hunter team had merly run off into the woods and then the tall grass. It was only until Roland mentioned Ajay that he heard anything about the ambush. We don't know how he handled the emotions is what I'm saying.