So can we all agree that the OP didn’t actually watch the movie? Malcom asks Dr. Grant if they were an item of sorts and he straight out says yes. What more do you need?
I always took them for a relationship, yet probably not too serious yet.
Can we all agree that you didn’t actually read the OP? I did mention that but people in the other thread thought Grant did that because even if he didn’t want to date Ellie, he thought Malcolm wasn’t good enough for Ellie. That’s why I put it up for discussion.
Why is this even a discussion?
In the movie when Malcom and Grant are trapped in the car Malcom straight up asks him “Are you and Dr. Sattler and item?” and Grant says “Yes”
I don’t know about the book…but the movie seems to be a pretty open and shut case
Edit: Upon reading the simulpost that’s right above me…Nevermind
Others didn’t interpret it that way. From the other thread:
I thought that meant they were in a relationship myself but others had a different take.
To the people who posit that Grant just didn’t want Sattler to hook up with Malcolm, what evidence is there that Grant hates Malcolm that much? I mean, he clearly isn’t hugely impressed with the guy, but AFAIK he only meets him for the first time in Jurassic Park, and doesn’t really interact with him until the moment Malcolm asks him about Ellie - and that’s the moment that we first see him give any strong negative reaction to Malcolm. To me, that says that his negative reaction has more to do with his feelings about Sattler than his feelings about Malcolm.
Combined with the conversations between Sattler and Grant in the early scenes of the movie, I think the evidence is far more on the side of “they are in a relationship” (and a reasonably serious one, if Sattler is thinking about having kids with Grant) than not.
There’s also no particular indication that the movie versions of Sattler and Grant are shy, awkward, or particularly nerdy (field paleontologists tend to be tough, outdoorsy types, not socially inept shut-ins). Hell, the characters aren’t even like that in the book. Sattler is described as a knowledgeable, confident tomboy who doesn’t take crap from anyone, while Grant is a “barrel-chested” man’s man who loves teaching kids about dinosaurs. The film versions are just less-intense takes on these characters, with Grant being more soft-spoken (due to Neill’s delivery) and, at first, disliking kids, and Sattler being a bit more flirtatious but otherwise pretty much as described in the book.
I thought it was obvious in the movie that they were in a relationship, just by the way they interacted. And yes, the discussion of kids had something to do with that.
However, I don’t think Grant’s reaction to Malcom’s question is probative of anything- if I recall correctly, Grant’s response isn’t “Yes” but “Why?”, and Malcom correctly interprets it to mean that they are, in fact, an item, and sort of apologizes.
The conversation as I remember it:
Malcolm: “So…Dr. Sattler…is she available?”
Grant: “Why?”
Malcolm: “I’m sorry, you two are…”
Grant: (pointedly) “Yeah.”
If nothing else, remember her running and hugging him after she escapes the electrical shed? She wraps her leg around him. You don’t do that to someone you’re not in a relationship with.
They were clearly in a relationship. Grant is visibly annoyed when Malcolm, inspired by Sattler’s very excellent wheels, starts putting the moves her on, and when Malcolm commets that he’s always on the lookout for the next ex-wife, Grant gives him the “Look, dude, I like you and all, but keep your mitts off my woman!” gaze we are all taught in 6th grade. Malcolm immediately recognizes it and apologizes.
The third Jurassic is execreble, but I did appreciate their not pretending that the romantic relationship had lasted. The cracks in it were obvious from the beginning of the first movie.
They’re not in a relationship in the book; he tells the younger grandchild that she’s engaged to someone else. Apparently Book-Grant has more ethics than Movie-Grant.
I thought he told the elder grandchild that? That is, doesn’t Tim (who’s the elder grandchild in the book) ask?
You are correct. I had briefly forgotten that they flipped the ages of the kids around for the movie, presumably so the girl child needn’t be useless. In the book the boy is older (and the girl is a LITTLE girl, maybe 7 or 8), and it’s the boy knows both computers and dinosaurs.
Also, the girl was obnoxious and needed to be the one ripped apart by the baby T-Rex, not Ed Regis.
D’aaaaaaw the girl was adorable. I think you’ve just got an icecube where your heart should be. Meany.
In what way was she obnoxious?
She was really annoying and kept pointing out Tim’s flaws. I mean, I know she was a kid and her parents were divorcing, but she’d say really annoying things like, “Daddy thinks Tim has dinosaurs on the brain!” (and Tim had a pretty rocky relationship with his father). Or when he was trying to get the computers working, she kept saying, “Timmy, you don’t know what you’re doing–tell them you don’t know what to do!” Which contrasted pretty sharply with the book where the younger kid was encouraging his older sister. (Instead of giving Sattler and Grant the gun they were so desperately trying to reach, but that’s another thread.)
I think you’re getting the movie and book reversed. In the movie the girl was older, and it was she who knew about computers, while her brother knew about dinosaurs. In the movie the boy is older and knows about both, and the little girl is … well, not quite obnoxious … the little girl is vexsome, as scared little girls often are.
Vexsome? Is that even a word?
Somebody has to coin new words. It might as well be me.
Consider it a pointless portmanteau of irksome and vexatious.
I thought it was blatantly obvious that the two were in a relationship. A serious one, where marriage and children were on the table and Ellie was trying to convince Grant that having children with her would be a good idea.
The clues and outright references to this in the movie are all over the place. The two of them give each other significant loving looks repeatedly, children is obviously a bone of contention between them, they’re physically affectionate, etc.
In a movie full of stereotypes and cardboard characters, I thought their relationship was about the most believable part of the whole thing.
No, I’m saying that the book (where the boy knew about both) portrayed the little sister as more irritating because she was pretty rude (discouraging the boy when he was working the computers, etc.). In the movie, the kids seemed to have a better relationship because when Lex (the older girl) was trying to work Unix, the younger sib was encouraging.