General / Off-Topic Roland Tempo a villain
- Thread starter Convoz
- Start date
I may be biased because he's one of my favorite characters, but I don't consider him a villain per se. Sure, he has *some* villainous characteristics, but if I think of the villain of TLW I think of Ludlow and maybe Stark.
I honestly think he was more used than anything. Ludlow was the villian promising the sun, moon and stars. He had no idea what the hell he was getting into and Ludlow was just another pawn in his game.
Aside from the awesome - and sadly late - Pete Postlethwaite playing the role, it's little wonder such a popular character. For me - grey, possibly damaged, finds redemption.
Any hunting is a dodgy area in the 21st century though there are management culls that can be for good scientific reasons (environment protection vs over grazing for eg.) over and beyond what has become otherwise sport - or to a buddhist, a proper crime. Hunting is not always about sport though, it could be for defence, could be for food.
In Roland's case it has become all about sport but I suspect that's a perversion, as I feel he comes from a place where hunting was once a necessity. Obviously, having seen the Tyrranosaur this changes his mind and he realises he's misusing his skills but this doesn't for me making him a villain. Even when he's taking money, even if he wants to kill a Rex, a morality that many people wouldn't understand, he receives an education AND he learns from it. So from his neutral (grey) start - from a culture that exists and was once a way of life - he finds a way out of his dentist induced nihilism.
OK?
Any hunting is a dodgy area in the 21st century though there are management culls that can be for good scientific reasons (environment protection vs over grazing for eg.) over and beyond what has become otherwise sport - or to a buddhist, a proper crime. Hunting is not always about sport though, it could be for defence, could be for food.
In Roland's case it has become all about sport but I suspect that's a perversion, as I feel he comes from a place where hunting was once a necessity. Obviously, having seen the Tyrranosaur this changes his mind and he realises he's misusing his skills but this doesn't for me making him a villain. Even when he's taking money, even if he wants to kill a Rex, a morality that many people wouldn't understand, he receives an education AND he learns from it. So from his neutral (grey) start - from a culture that exists and was once a way of life - he finds a way out of his dentist induced nihilism.
OK?
Last edited:
Well look at it this way, Roland got all the (+30) men under his leadership killed. He puts his “#2” in charge of the first camp, we all know how that went. 2nd camp he doesn’t set up any look outs or have a protocol if a dinosaur shows up.
Other things include sending a civilian to the hospital for no good reason, he can’t keep track of his men, letting a civilian touch his gun, he doesn’t care that he got all his men killed, the list goes on...[wacko] So is he a villain? Maybe. Is he incompetent? Yes.
Tinfoil hat on: In any case, the TRUE villain is Nick Van Owen. Nick is a psychopath.
Who killed all the people on the ship headed to the mainland? The T.Rex? Nope.
Other things include sending a civilian to the hospital for no good reason, he can’t keep track of his men, letting a civilian touch his gun, he doesn’t care that he got all his men killed, the list goes on...[wacko] So is he a villain? Maybe. Is he incompetent? Yes.
Tinfoil hat on: In any case, the TRUE villain is Nick Van Owen. Nick is a psychopath.
Who killed all the people on the ship headed to the mainland? The T.Rex? Nope.
And why did they panic and run in the first place? No planning by Roland. Like literally no orders or instructions at all beforehand or during the attack.
Swap out Roland for Muldoon in that situation and guess what happens. “SHOOT HER!” Everyone shoots, threat neutralized.
I don't peg him as a villain through a lot of it.
Of all the characters in the movie, he's the one that is a pulp character dropped into it. In many ways, he's an older, more jaded version of Lord John Roxton from Doyles work or many of the characters from Burroughs...
The movie also puts him in the "dinosaur" role, much like the movie framed Alan Grant shortly after the arrival on Nublar. He's a relic of a different time.
His fist fight, if you pay attention, was started due to the harassment of the woman and then his boredom taking it further...
Villain or no, I've put Roland in charge of ACU helicopter.
Hire a predator to catch a predator I say and there be Deinonychus in them there hills.
Hire a predator to catch a predator I say and there be Deinonychus in them there hills.
Because Mrs. I-think-from-11'clock-till-noon-Harding brought her blood soaked shirt with her along for the trip and thus led the Rexes to the camp
What I like about Temba and van Owen is how they are placed in the story. Temba comes across as "the good guy among the bad guys", while van Owen is the "bad guy among the good guys". A masterpiece of story telling. Van Owen is not necessarily a "villian", but certainly not a hero character either. If you think about it, all of his actions (and his actions alone) lead to the disastrous events in the movie: Who sabotaged the Hunters' camp and thus destroyed the communication equipment? Him. Who brought the juvenile Rex to the trailer and let the Rexes leave and expand their territory? Him. Who sabotaged Temba's rifle, so Temba had to tranq the Rex buck instead of shooting him? So you could argue, that van Owen's actions are also responsible for the San Diego incident.
I think the only good thing he achieved in the entire movie is that he didin't manage to screw up the phone call for the Evac mission
Talking about Temba again, I like his character and his no-bull attitude. He's the go-to big game hunter who has seen and done everything there is to do and now sees his chance for one final big challenge. I don't really see him as a man who hunts for sport. I think he hunts for the challenge and to see if he is good enough to take on the most dangerous animial that has ever lived. I think he comes right after Ian Malcom as my second favorite character in the entire franchise.
I like this.
I was actually thinking about this very thing at work today. I thought about making a thread, but basically I was brainstorming a theory that everything Nick did was calculated and MORE. Such as he’s the one who tangled up Eddie’s dart gun and that he intentionally let the backpack fall at the cliff. There was some other stuff too, but the big payoff would be Nick played a major role in what happened to the crew of the ship with the T.rex, that kind of angle. [wacko]Van Owen is not necessarily a "villian", but certainly not a hero character either. If you think about it, all of his actions (and his actions alone) lead to the disastrous events in the movie: Who sabotaged the Hunters' camp and thus destroyed the communication equipment? Him. Who brought the juvenile Rex to the trailer and let the Rexes leave and expand their territory? Him. Who sabotaged Temba's rifle, so Temba had to tranq the Rex buck instead of shooting him? So you could argue, that van Owen's actions are also responsible for the San Diego incident.
I think the only good thing he achieved in the entire movie is that he didin't manage to screw up the phone call for the Evac mission
I don't think it's really a calculated action or "evil masterplan" of him. At least as far as I see this character. I think van Owen is a barb at environmental protection groups that sometimes do stupid stuff with good intentions or don't think about the consequences their actions might have.
There was an incident in Germany a few months ago, when an attack dog mauled and killed his owner and her adult son. The dog was taken into custody of a local animal shelter and it was decided that the dog was too dangerous to be left alive. So the authorities announced that the dog has to be killed at a later date. That same night, "someone" tried to break into the shelter, but failed. In the context of a major backlash from animal rights groups against the shelter (up to and including death threats against employees), the authorities considerd the failed break-in as an attempt to free the dog. So, now imagine those guys had succeeded with getting into the shelter. You have an aggressive attack dog that just two or three days ago mauled and killed his owners. The dog is in an unfamiliar place, yet has already made his little cage his new territory. Unless the shelter tranq'ed the dog to the point that he's high as the heavens, he is probably not in the best of moods. And now imagine some wannabe heros that are absolutely unknown and unfamiliar to him enter his new territory and try to grab him. What could possibly go wrong? Even if they had succeeded, who could guarantee that an attack dog, that had already killed two people, wouldn't kill again when he feels threatened or otherwise agitated?
I understand van Owen in a similar way. He had probably good intentions (saving the Dinosaurs), but he also doesn't think much about the possible negative consequences of his actions. Best example is setting the Dinosaurs free in the Hunters' camp. At first glance one might think "yay, the poor little Dinos are free!", until you realize that several of the hunters have been injured and the communication is destroyed, stranding both teams on an island filled with dangerous creatures. His actions (and those of Sarah Harding) are also the visual continuation of the Butterfly-effect from JP 1. Their initial actions ultimately led to a chain of events that made the T-Rex buck rampage through San Diego. All with the best intentions of course
To bring Tembo up again, he's actually a very planning and thoughtful character who considers the pros and cons of an action carefully. When Ludlow suggests to set up camp on the gametrail, he immediately intervenes, stops him and points out the consequences of setting up camp in the hunting grounds of the carnivores. That makes him the opposite of van Owen.
As for the question who killed the crew of the S.S. Venture. Klayton Fioriti put a video about that question up on his YouTube channel and showed an additional sketch of the originally planned set for the scene in a current clip (I think the review video for JP2). There you can see that they initially intended to show a large hole in the bridge section, implying the T-Rex broke through and killed the guy at the steering wheel. There's much I hold up against van Owen, but I don't think he had anything (directly
) to do with the demise of the ship's crew 
Because Mrs. I-think-from-11'clock-till-noon-Harding brought her blood soaked shirt with her along for the trip and thus led the Rexes to the camp
What I like about Temba and van Owen is how they are placed in the story. Temba comes across as "the good guy among the bad guys", while van Owen is the "bad guy among the good guys". A masterpiece of story telling. Van Owen is not necessarily a "villian", but certainly not a hero character either. If you think about it, all of his actions (and his actions alone) lead to the disastrous events in the movie: Who sabotaged the Hunters' camp and thus destroyed the communication equipment? Him. Who brought the juvenile Rex to the trailer and let the Rexes leave and expand their territory? Him. Who sabotaged Temba's rifle, so Temba had to tranq the Rex buck instead of shooting him? So you could argue, that van Owen's actions are also responsible for the San Diego incident.
I think the only good thing he achieved in the entire movie is that he didin't manage to screw up the phone call for the Evac mission
Talking about Temba again, I like his character and his no-bull attitude. He's the go-to big game hunter who has seen and done everything there is to do and now sees his chance for one final big challenge. I don't really see him as a man who hunts for sport. I think he hunts for the challenge and to see if he is good enough to take on the most dangerous animial that has ever lived. I think he comes right after Ian Malcom as my second favorite character in the entire franchise.
I've read some time ago an early version of the script and this was more clearly;
Roland is some kind of anti-hero, just a guy doing his job that ends switching sides, while Nick was the annoying secondary character that causes some mess by no thinking on the consecuences of his actions.
I think that changed when they hired a "rising star" as Vince Vaughn for the role of Nick, they gave him a more prominent role and tried to made him one of the heroes of the story and making him part of some main scenes where he was not in the early version, but some of his actions from the new script seems to be the same as before this "cleaning".