Board Thread:Movie discussion/@comment-1187034-20160321053407/@comment-25238001-20160321153257

BastionMonk wrote:

MarkJira wrote:

But at the same time, 1928 can't be right, because Hammond was most definitely older than 65 in the first movie. Good point. However, the actor who played John Hammond, Richard Attenborough, was born in 1923. Which is only 5 years (marginally) older than 1928. I guess, some people just don't age well.

Furthermore, it would not have been the first time that an actor looks much older/younger than the movie character he/she portrayes. That's true, I suppose. But in the novel, Hammond was 73 years old at the time of the incident. Nearly a decade older than his film counterpart might've been.