Dinosaur Protection Group

Sickle_Claw wrote:

I really like how they mentioned the herrasaurs from JPTG

And the park veterinarian whose name was redacted was almost certainly Gerry Harding.

DPFAR

For anyone whose interested, given the new information, I created a list of species present on each island at specific periods of time:

Spoiler:

And the fifteen species Dennis Nedry stole:
* Baryonyx
* Brachiosaurus
* Compsognathus
* Corythosaurus
* Dilophosaurus
* Gallimimus
* Herrerasaurus
* Metriacanthosaurus
* Parasaurolophus
* Proceratosaurus
* Segisaurus
* Stegosaurus
* Triceratops
* Tyrannosaurus rex
* Velociraptor

Oh boy. Lots of updates for me to do on Pedia! I'm stoked!

Mount Sibo is now at MAG 04, the eruption is now imminent.

As a result of new developments; Claire, Zia and Franklin will be heading to Costa Rica shortly.

Hey guys, finally we can come out from the woodwork. I just wanted to say its been a fantastic journey over the last year and six months building/researching and writing content for the viral websites. I hope you enjoyed the content we put out on the DPG/Extinction Now! and the new film!

I've been lurking on your forums for sometime now, reading theories/speculations to unanswered questions in the Jurassic lore and I hope through the viral campaigns we could finally lay to rest some of them. You've all been fantastic.

Any questions I'll do my best to answer.

Thank YOU!

- Jack

Ewinzilla wrote:

Hey guys, finally we can come out from the woodwork. I just wanted to say its been a fantastic journey over the last year and six months building/researching and writing content for the viral websites. I hope you enjoyed the content we put out on the DPG/Extinction Now! and the new film!

I've been lurking on your forums for sometime now, reading theories/speculations to unanswered questions in the Jurassic lore and I hope through the viral campaigns we could finally lay to rest some of them. You've all been fantastic.

Any questions I'll do my best to answer.

Thank YOU!

- Jack

Yes hello I have one big one. Why did you advertise and promote Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom without acknowledging your ties to the film's production crew and Universal Studios/Comcast?

Because I'm a fan of these films regardless of our ties to the studio.

Although our company website has a list of who we've worked with so far.

Ewinzilla wrote:

Because I'm a fan of these films regardless of our ties to the studio.

Although our company website has a list of who we've worked with so far.

Yes and that's fine, however you never officially disclosed on Twitter your close knit connection to the production crew which could be considered a conflict of interest. By working so closely with the film crew your lack of disclosure over this relationship can put your motivations over why you advertised and endorsed the film so heavily into doubt. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with you loving the films, I'm glad you do. Where there is an issue however is you potentially making money from Universal for your site, working with the cast and crew on this site, and then selling this movie to fans through your Twitter page without disclosing this. I can pull up tweets from twitter where you tell fans to go see it and giving the film a 10/10.

I originally posted this in the JW:FK news thread but I'm reposting this here to explain my reasoning clearly-
While I know I'm new here, something has come to my attention on Twitter and I feel that the Jurassic community should be made aware of it. Very big and very popular fandom member Jack Ewins who wrote the Masrani Global marketing site for JW, has stated today that he was also the writer of the DPG site-
h ttps://twitter.com/Jack_Ewins/status/1011114071939305472

Now this would be fine if he had not marketed for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and told fans to go see it while also rating it a ten out of ten. It's fine for him to love the film and advertise it, however the way he went about it suggested he was a regular fan and not someone tied to the production. Before this point the only indication on his twitter account up to September 5th, 2017 were merely hints that he was involved such as-
h ttps://twitter.com/Jack_Ewins/status/1010300273049456640
h ttps://twitter.com/Jack_Ewins/status/1007049637226676224
h ttps://twitter.com/Jack_Ewins/status/941078994723790854

And RTed this statement from Colin Trevorrow-
h ttps://twitter.com/colintrevorrow/status/960518175946403840

While there is absolutely NO ISSUE with liking Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, it is in my opinion, morally dubious to do what Jack Ewins has done without fully disclosing his role in the production of Fallen Kingdom. Other entities such as gaming Youtubers have gotten in trouble for this kind of behavior before.

Viral marketing feels more real when people don't know who is behind it. The filmmakers and ourselves chose to keep our involvement a secret to help this.

Ewinzilla wrote:

Viral marketing feels more real when people don't know who is behind it. The filmmakers and ourselves chose to keep our involvement a secret to help this.

That's all well and good if you had not advertised this film without disclosing your close working relations to the cast, crew, and companies behind Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. The fact that you're merely deflecting my points with fluff rather then being willing to acknowledge the conflicts of interest created by saying the film is a 10/10 and telling fans to go see it is very shady. Not to mention your already massive impact on this fandom 2nd only to Jurassic Outpost while having a wide reach makes this approach very unethical.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I liked the film. I wanted to suggest people see it.

I give films I love a 10/10 because they exist. With so many people working on them, time limits, things life could throw at the crew etc it always amazes me they work out as good as they do.

Plus for example, I don’t like how the gymnastic scene plays out in The Lost World but it doesn’t reduce the film to a 9/10 for me because it rocks my socks too much overall.

I'm gonna pop my two-cents in here. I've got to agree with @WeNeedToTalk here and say that while it's perfectly fine for you to enjoy the film (I do myself, as I pointed out in my review), the crux of the issue here isn't about how much you enjoyed the film. You said you and the other filmmakers wanted to keep it "real" by not giving away the fact you were working on it, and again, that alone by itself is fine. These two things separately are perfectly fine and there's nothing wrong with either of them. The issue of ethics comes in when you actively promote the film while you worked on the film without disclosing your close and active part in it's production. While I understand your concerns about keeping the "real" aspect of the viral marketing alive, the fact of the matter is it's entirely unethical to actively promote a product when you're a part of it's production without disclosing you're involved in it. Again, like I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with legitimately enjoying the product you're promoting while also working on it, but it's also important that in those instances you disclose your working relationship with it. Most companies require such disclosure from their employees if/when they promote products of the company they work for (a personal anecdote would be from when I worked at GameStop, I was told on day one of training that I had to disclose I worked for GameStop if I promoted them or anything they had going on on social media). By not doing so, you've made your opinions on matters related to the film questionable to many. I'm not saying you don't like the movie, and by all I means I believe you in your stated opinion of the film, I'm not doubting this. But when you fail to tell people your relationship to a product you're bound to be labeled things like "shill" and much faith in your opinions will be lost. And beyond you, I believe its a duty to both people who trust you and fans at large to let them know of any connections you may have to something like this. Consider how one might feel if a person whose opinion they trusted suggested they see a film they like, only to not like it and then discover that person was involved in it's creation. Regardless of how you truly feel, to many it will seem like your positive experiences and personal ties to the film will have tainted your perception, or maybe even think you were "paid off". I'm not saying I think either of these two things, but the fact of the matter is it will. And people have a right to know when the opinion they're hearing is from someone who has worked on the product.

I'm certain it was exciting for you to work on such a big part of a franchise you adore, and I'm happy for you in the fact that you got to work on such a project. But at the end of the day, regardless of how much it might break the "immersion" of sorts, people need to know when you're involved with something so they can weight that when viewing your opinion on something. There are many pro-consumer laws in place regarding this kind of thing because while the intent may be good, in the long run in can cause some serious harm to both the audience and the creators. And you mentioned earlier that on your website you do work with Universal/Amblin. While that is a great step in the right direction, it's incredibly vague and many people who follow your opinions on social media may not check your site for such information to begin with. The best way to disclose this kind of information is to outright publicly state it in explicit language as to not cause any confusion. It both allows people to know what your relationship to the film is while being easily accessible. Something like your tweet from earlier announcing that it was your project is exactly what I'm talking about, only it should have been stated prior to giving any ratings to the film or telling people to go see it. Keeping it a secret until after the fact when it may be too late for some people is just not the right way to go about it.

I understand that you and the filmmakers intentions were good and that no ill harm was meant. I understand that your opinions on the film are likely unaltered by your work on the website. This is all okay. But you have a duty to disclose this kind of information and I'm disappointed that it wasn't. Knowing this information is something every fan of both yours and the series has a right to know, even if that might ruin the illusion for some.

Ewinzilla wrote:

I'm sorry you feel that way. I liked the film. I wanted to suggest people see it.

I give films I love a 10/10 because they exist. With so many people working on them, time limits, things life could throw at the crew etc it always amazes me they work out as good as they do.

Plus for example, I don’t like how the gymnastic scene plays out in The Lost World but it doesn’t reduce the film to a 9/10 for me because it rocks my socks too much overall.

Pokesaurus said all that needs to be said, however it is amusing to me that you took a page out of Channel Awesome's playbook in your response here.

Noted. If we do work with the studio again I'll bring this up.

Is this real life!?

So you worked with the film makers and worked on all the viral marketing for the DPG?

How does that work? The film maker tells you what they'd like and you guys create the content, they review it, and you post it? I'm just curious as to how much influence you have over the lore or how little.

Spiegel wrote:

How does that work? The film maker tells you what they'd like and you guys create the content, they review it, and you post it? I'm just curious as to how much influence you have over the lore or how little.

We had a lot of influence which was something I wasn't expecting.

We knew we were fighting for the dinosaurs rights, and understood the role the DPG would play in the new movie but we had a lot of free reign over the content; articles, blogs, images etc. It was a very creative process where we would write what we thought would make for cool and interesting content, then it was passed to the studio and Colin for review. I was honestly surprised by how open they were to a lot of our ideas.

Wow.

So how does it make you feel if/when you see fans that dont like the content? How much do things like being a member of the forum here and reading our input influence your content?

Honestly I don't mind if someone doesn't like what we write, I understand. We were using this activist site to pull the rug from under InGen and Masrani Global so unearthing their secrets was something that meant answering things in a way some folks might not have liked. There was a lot to juggle.

This forum and other fan websites/twitter accounts etc were a huge influence to us. People would ask questions and we'd be like oh man, that is something we must cover on the DPG or Extinction Now. For example the T-rex paddock, for years folks have wanted an 'in-canon' answer for how the moat worked so with our Old Park article we used the image at the top to answer that.

Another example being TJ's website (Jurassic-pedia) which pointed us in the direction of Mt. Sibo also having the name Mount Hammond, which he speculated was the name given to the mountain by InGen employees. So we made sure to mention that in the last article on the DPG.

Ok, I've got one for you.

Why should we trust your sites as reliable canon sources when being websites, they can be changed around at will even when finished?


They are not like books, cartoon shows, or movies which when done, are completed and solid/concrete.

It's cool to see someone that was involved with the website on here. I think you did a really good job.

You mentioned that you had to send your ideas to Universal/Colin for review. Were there any ideas that were rejected?

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Ok, I've got one for you.

Why should we trust your sites as reliable canon sources when being websites, they can be changed around at will even when finished?


They are not like books, cartoon shows, or movies which when done, are completed and solid/concrete.

What we've written remains largely solidified. We had a couple of minor retcons moving from Masrani Global to DPG but nothing that would have harmed the structure of the grander story. Our goal is to fit all the pieces together as best we can, but with such a large production things will sometimes slip through the net.

Some of our writing from the websites has started to appear in books, games which should start to help make it more concrete if websites aren't your thing. That said we like it if fans flag something that is wrong because then we can rectify and get right as opposed to having a mistake set in stone.

WeNeedToTalk wrote:

Ewinzilla wrote:

Because I'm a fan of these films regardless of our ties to the studio.

Although our company website has a list of who we've worked with so far.

Yes and that's fine, however you never officially disclosed on Twitter your close knit connection to the production crew which could be considered a conflict of interest. By working so closely with the film crew your lack of disclosure over this relationship can put your motivations over why you advertised and endorsed the film so heavily into doubt. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with you loving the films, I'm glad you do. Where there is an issue however is you potentially making money from Universal for your site, working with the cast and crew on this site, and then selling this movie to fans through your Twitter page without disclosing this. I can pull up tweets from twitter where you tell fans to go see it and giving the film a 10/10.

Why does that actually matter, though?

Ewinzilla wrote:

Honestly I don't mind if someone doesn't like what we write, I understand. We were using this activist site to pull the rug from under InGen and Masrani Global so unearthing their secrets was something that meant answering things in a way some folks might not have liked. There was a lot to juggle.

This forum and other fan websites/twitter accounts etc were a huge influence to us. People would ask questions and we'd be like oh man, that is something we must cover on the DPG or Extinction Now. For example the T-rex paddock, for years folks have wanted an 'in-canon' answer for how the moat worked so with our Old Park article we used the image at the top to answer that.

Another example being TJ's website (Jurassic-pedia) which pointed us in the direction of Mt. Sibo also having the name Mount Hammond, which he speculated was the name given to the mountain by InGen employees. So we made sure to mention that in the last article on the DPG.

Do you have any idea why they decided to not mention Isla Sorna's state in the film itself? I liked the DPG's backstory on Sorna, but hey didn't really go into it in the film.

Ewinzilla wrote:

What we've written remains largely solidified. We had a couple of minor retcons moving from Masrani Global to DPG but nothing that would have harmed the structure of the grander story. Our goal is to fit all the pieces together as best we can, but with such a large production things will sometimes slip through the net.

What are the minor retcons that happened in the sites?

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

Ewinzilla wrote:

What we've written remains largely solidified. We had a couple of minor retcons moving from Masrani Global to DPG but nothing that would have harmed the structure of the grander story. Our goal is to fit all the pieces together as best we can, but with such a large production things will sometimes slip through the net.

What are the minor retcons that happened in the sites?

They changed the first dinosaur cloned in 1986 from Velociraptor to Triceratops. (This was most likely to fit with Henry Wu discovering in 1991 that Velociraptor (and Dilophosaurus) genome was incompatible with the yellow poison dart frog genes, thus switching to common reed frog, which inadvertently allowed them to change sex and breed.)

The unspecified hybrid cloned in 2009 was completely removed.

Those are the ones I could think of.

Dilophosaurus wrote:

It's cool to see someone that was involved with the website on here. I think you did a really good job.  

You mentioned that you had to send your ideas to Universal/Colin for review. Were there any ideas that were rejected?

Thank you! There wasn't really any ideas that did not make the cut aside from some social images. The Extinction Now! campaign was planned to begin earlier but we felt it was best to release it in the time between the international and US release to make up for the gap.

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Do you have any idea why they decided to not mention Isla Sorna's state in the film itself? I liked the DPG's backstory on Sorna, but hey didn't really go into it in the film.

I don't know I'm afraid. We had originally wrote a news ticker that was going to appear in the film which covered Sorna's status but it did not make the cut (as far as I can tell). That said we convinced Colin to have second island at least mentioned to calm those vocal few who think 2&3 are not canon. He agreed it was for the best.

Why was it decided that Sorna would be destabilized and depopulated? For purely money reasons I understand Masrani acquiring InGen meant they had the assets, but Hammond’s dream past the original film seemed to be to preserve Sorna as it was, not build a New park, per Simon Masrani’s mention of Hammond’s dying wish.

Ewinzilla wrote:

What we've written remains largely solidified. We had a couple of minor retcons moving from Masrani Global to DPG but nothing that would have harmed the structure of the grander story. Our goal is to fit all the pieces together as best we can, but with such a large production things will sometimes slip through the net.

Some of our writing from the websites has started to appear in books, games which should start to help make it more concrete if websites aren't your thing. That said we like it if fans flag something that is wrong because then we can rectify and get right as opposed to having a mistake set in stone.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to interact with us and answer some of our questions!

So I take it that this confirms that the websites are hard canon, regardless of how malleable the content might be?

Hello Jack. I'm Lewis. You may saw me on twitter. First, your work is always awesome and I always enjoyed reading your articles since Masrani Global.

I wonder you and your friends will make new articles on DPG amd Extinction Now! after FK.

When I found you made a Masrani Terminal, I was so excited. I really love we see new informations after JW.

So I hope you update new articles near future.
I want to see more InGen's dirty secret!

Like this:
"During 1994 Clean-up, InGen Security terminated all Species Number IG74726f6f646f6e (T. pectinodon) and found carcass of InGen's first marine reptile (Tylosaurus)."

I know JPTG is just a soft-canon, but you can use elements of it! It'll be awesome!