Is anybody else frustrated that it's only now that we're getting all things now?

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Dr. Wu wrote:

The Lost World is a beloved film in the franchise by fans but critics don't like it at all because of shortcomings and lack of ambition.

Why doesn't the JW trilogy have the same fan love that TLW had though both share similar issues?
Even JP3 has slowly got more love from fans over the years yet JW trilogy is just criticized.

They all have had a different set of issues. In the case of TLW the only issue it had was that it did not have the same awe and wonder factor of the first and that it was not that similar to the book. But those were not that significant issues so the TLW did not recieve any kind of backlash and the general consensus is that while it is not as good as the first, it is still the best sequel in the franchise.

Jurassic Park 3 did recieve significant backlash because of establishing that this new species is way superior and can easily humilliate the already iconic T Rex species. On top of that fans and the general public disliked the fact that the plot seemed too short, simplistic and the Kirbys were unpopular characters. But you are right that over the years it did develop a few fans but they are still a tiny minority within the hardcore fanbase. Overall it is still the most hated film in the franchise by both hardcore fans and the general public.

Jurassic World despite plenty of initial hype and many accepting it as a "fun popcorn flick" there is a huge portion of both the hardcore fanbase that really really hates it for diverse and different reasons. Many thought the concepts it introduced were dumb (The using dinosaurs in war thing), some were just not that into the hybrid mutants thing while others hated that final fight because it felt a little bit too much Jurassic Avengers and did not solve the Rex Spino issue at all and so on...

Fallen Kingdom recieved a negative reception more due to the fact that many in both the general public and hardcore fanbase are feeling like the series is moving more into a super bombastic modern Marvel like summer blockbuster.  quite  a few people in the general public were confused as to what happened to the other island (Sorna) and many hardcore fans are getting tired of Rexy and Blue portrayed almost as superheroes.

So the issues from The Lost World are different, much less significant, smaller and not quite as diverse as the issues and problems that Jurassic Park 3, Jurassic World or Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom have presented.

Yes JW and FK are extremely bombastic compared to the rest of the franchise but it's still taking the series in a new direction story wise and I happen to be a fan of it. And the whole dinosaurs for war are only discussed by the villains because as Trevorrow said it's a insane pipedream.

[quote="Dr. Wu"]

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Dr. Wu wrote:

Why doesn't the JW trilogy have the same fan love that TLW had though both share similar issues?
Even JP3 has slowly got more love from fans over the years yet JW trilogy is just criticized.

The viral sites are not meant to heavily connect with the films but to give fans a deeper insight on current and past events. That's it.

FK alludes to Sorna having no more dinosaurs with the news segment at the start states the Mt. Sibo would kill the last remaining dinosaurs meaning Sorna has none left at least that's the belief. Sorna itself is acknowledge to prove that the JW films are not reboots but sequels to TLW and JP3.

Trevorrow may just love the original film from the original trilogy but he knows fans also love TLW and when he has the time he replies to fans on Twitter. Do most filmmakers do that?

I have to give Trevorrow credit for that. He interacts with the fans often and at the very least seems to be respectful and humble towards them. The polar opposite of Rian Johnson who more or less said F... whatever the fans want I am making whatever I want even if the fans hate it and when the fans reacted in a negative way to that he started gaslighting them making them look as if they were crazy.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

1morey wrote:

Emptying Isla Sorna and destroying Nublar was necessary to move away from the islands and finish the subplot that went unfinished in the novels.

I think it was possible to both move the story away from the islands and respect what TLW and JP3 had brought, by keeping Sorna (and also maybe the rest of the Five Deaths) as a protected reserve where feral populations of dinosaurs are being studied by scientists (whose work might ending up useful years later with the propagation of deextinction technology around the globe and incidents involving dinosaurs happening here and there). The only issue that this might have created would have been the relevance of the whole Extinction debate present in Fallen Kingdom but Nublar's dinosaurs could still be brought to the mainland for x or y reasons (feeling of responsability from Claire and the other former park employees, InGen wanting to sell them to zoos, aquarias and other entities in order to cope with the economic fallout of Jurassic World's fall...) and the story would still follow FK's outlines.

^This. Star Wars might have been able to get away with getting rid of most of the old EU books since they still had a considerable amount of material. But to outright bastardize the JP lore like the movies and sites did to Sorna is another thing simply because we don't have much else to lean on. One would think that fans would have been more protective of lore because of that, yet, oddly, many here haven't.

Dr. Wu wrote:

Yes JW and FK are extremely bombastic compared to the rest of the franchise but it's still taking the series in a new direction story wise and I happen to be a fan of it. And the whole dinosaurs for war are only discussed by the villains because as Trevorrow said it's a insane pipedream.

But how long before people get sick of that? The bombastic tone, which is usually meant to pander to the lowest common denominator, can only last so long. Ask Paramount about that with the Transformers movie franchise.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

1morey wrote:

Emptying Isla Sorna and destroying Nublar was necessary to move away from the islands and finish the subplot that went unfinished in the novels.

I think it was possible to both move the story away from the islands and respect what TLW and JP3 had brought, by keeping Sorna (and also maybe the rest of the Five Deaths) as a protected reserve where feral populations of dinosaurs are being studied by scientists (whose work might ending up useful years later with the propagation of deextinction technology around the globe and incidents involving dinosaurs happening here and there). The only issue that this might have created would have been the relevance of the whole Extinction debate present in Fallen Kingdom but Nublar's dinosaurs could still be brought to the mainland for x or y reasons (feeling of responsability from Claire and the other former park employees, InGen wanting to sell them to zoos, aquarias and other entities in order to cope with the economic fallout of Jurassic World's fall...) and the story would still follow FK's outlines.

^This. Star Wars might have been able to get away with getting rid of most of the old EU books since they still had a considerable amount of material. But to outright bastardize the JP lore like the movies and sites did to Sorna is another thing simply because we don't have much else to lean on. One would think that fans would have been more protective of lore because of that, yet, oddly, many here haven't.

Dr. Wu wrote:

Yes JW and FK are extremely bombastic compared to the rest of the franchise but it's still taking the series in a new direction story wise and I happen to be a fan of it. And the whole dinosaurs for war are only discussed by the villains because as Trevorrow said it's a insane pipedream.

But how long before people get sick of that? The bombastic tone, which is usually meant to pander to the lowest common denominator, can only last so long. Ask Paramount about that with the Transformers movie franchise.

The lore evolves and for many that's fun to see. I don't think nothing was changed like SW lore. Masrani saying the JW park was Hammond's dying wish could be interpreted in a different way. Hammond may have only wanted the dinosaurs safe and Masrani took to saving them from Sorna by making a new park. Lockwood even said in FK that sanctuary was Hammond's dream which is what Sorna was supposed to be at the end of TLW. Sorna having no dinosaurs isn't bastardizing the Sorna lore hell in one of the JP3's making of JP3 someone said that the Spinosaurus could cause an extinction on Sorna.

As for being bombastic the JW films are no where near Transformers levels of bombastic but compared to the other JP films they are bombastic.

Dr. Wu wrote:

The lore evolves and for many that's fun to see.

Well, learning that Sorna's dinosaurs were either killed or captured for JW off-screen and that Jurassic Park had less dinosaurs species than we thought it had wasn't fun for me as I think that these decisions impoverished the franchise's universe.

Dr. Wu wrote:

Masrani saying the JW park was Hammond's dying wish could be interpreted in a different way. Hammond may have only wanted the dinosaurs safe and Masrani took to saving them from Sorna by making a new park.

Sure but we would like have the elements behind this reasoning or hints to different interpretations in the film itself, like in an opening montage à la Pacific Rim/Harry Potter with news items covering quickly the events that happened between JP3 and the opening of JW. Had they done this, Masrani's speech would have been easier to buy.

Dr. Wu wrote:

Lockwood even said in FK that sanctuary was Hammond's dream which is what Sorna was supposed to be at the end of TLW.

I think that the whole Sanctuary idea was included after JW's makers read the criticisms made about Hammond having supposedly endorsed the new park and that a number of fans and viewers were left dissatisfied with the lack of references to Sorna or any other elements from TLW and JP3 in JW.
I also really hope that Dominion won't end with the dinosaurs being finally transported to the Sanctuary because it will be a Rise of Skywalker situation all over again with a return to the status quo of TLW (dinosaurs being left alone on a remote island after some of them wreaked havoc on the mainland) and the entire JW trilogy would feel pointless.  

Dr. Wu wrote:

Sorna having no dinosaurs isn't bastardizing the Sorna lore hell in one of the JP3's making of JP3 someone said that the Spinosaurus could cause an extinction on Sorna.

Many things were said in the Making Of JP3 and interviews and not all of them made sense (like the JP3 raptors being the result of an evolution of the raptors from the two first films. A new subspecies appearing within 4 years? Yeah, of course...). Maybe the spino had the potential of causing an extinction on Sorna but instead of stating it in interviews, they could have shown it in the film itself if they wanted to implement that idea (by having the characters pass by a herd or an entire carnivore pack/family that was presumably slaughtered by the spino) because the only other dinosaur that the spino kills is the rex and it's more the result of a fortuituous territorial fight than anything. Had they done this, then we might have been more enclined to believe that there was a threat looming upon Sorna's ecosystem.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Many things were said in the Making Of JP3 and interviews and not all of them made sense (like the JP3 raptors being the result of an evolution of the raptors from the two first films. A new subspecies appearing within 4 years? Yeah, of course...). Maybe the spino had the potential of causing an extinction on Sorna but instead of stating it in interviews, they could have shown it in the film itself if they wanted to implement that idea (by having the characters pass by a herd or an entire carnivore pack/family that was presumably slaughtered by the spino) because the only other dinosaur that the spino kills is the rex and it's more the result of a fortuituous territorial fight than anything. Had they done this, then we might have been more enclined to believe that there was a threat looming upon Sorna's ecosystem.

You have a valid point here!

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Dr. Wu wrote:

The lore evolves and for many that's fun to see.

Well, learning that Sorna's dinosaurs were either killed or captured for JW off-screen and that Jurassic Park had less dinosaurs species than we thought it had wasn't fun for me as I think that these decisions impoverished the franchise's universe.

Dr. Wu wrote:

Masrani saying the JW park was Hammond's dying wish could be interpreted in a different way. Hammond may have only wanted the dinosaurs safe and Masrani took to saving them from Sorna by making a new park.

Sure but we would like have the elements behind this reasoning or hints to different interpretations in the film itself, like in an opening montage à la Pacific Rim/Harry Potter with news items covering quickly the events that happened between JP3 and the opening of JW. Had they done this, Masrani's speech would have been easier to buy.

Dr. Wu wrote:

Lockwood even said in FK that sanctuary was Hammond's dream which is what Sorna was supposed to be at the end of TLW.

I think that the whole Sanctuary idea was included after JW's makers read the criticisms made about Hammond having supposedly endorsed the new park and that a number of fans and viewers were left dissatisfied with the lack of references to Sorna or any other elements from TLW and JP3 in JW.
I also really hope that Dominion won't end with the dinosaurs being finally transported to the Sanctuary because it will be a Rise of Skywalker situation all over again with a return to the status quo of TLW (dinosaurs being left alone on a remote island after some of them wreaked havoc on the mainland) and the entire JW trilogy would feel pointless.  

Dr. Wu wrote:

Sorna having no dinosaurs isn't bastardizing the Sorna lore hell in one of the JP3's making of JP3 someone said that the Spinosaurus could cause an extinction on Sorna.

Many things were said in the Making Of JP3 and interviews and not all of them made sense (like the JP3 raptors being the result of an evolution of the raptors from the two first films. A new subspecies appearing within 4 years? Yeah, of course...). Maybe the spino had the potential of causing an extinction on Sorna but instead of stating it in interviews, they could have shown it in the film itself if they wanted to implement that idea (by having the characters pass by a herd or an entire carnivore pack/family that was presumably slaughtered by the spino) because the only other dinosaur that the spino kills is the rex and it's more the result of a fortuituous territorial fight than anything. Had they done this, then we might have been more enclined to believe that there was a threat looming upon Sorna's ecosystem.

All of this. You simply don't cheapen the lore for the sake of the present and future. Star Wars did that with ROS making ROTJ utterly pointless, and fans were not happy about that at all. If it didn't work for Star Wars, which is a far larger franchise, then it certainly won't work for a much smaller one like this one.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Many things were said in the Making Of JP3 and interviews and not all of them made sense. Maybe the spino had the potential of causing an extinction on Sorna but instead of stating it in interviews, they could have shown it in the film itself if they wanted to implement that idea (by having the characters pass by a herd or an entire carnivore pack/family that was presumably slaughtered by the spino) because the only other dinosaur that the spino kills is the rex and it's more the result of a fortuituous territorial fight than anything. Had they done this, then we might have been more enclined to believe that there was a threat looming upon Sorna's ecosystem.

That was because they really wanted to double down and really drive the point home that the Spinosaurus was SO superior to the T Rex that it could take down both T Rexes and other dinosaurs like nothing. That is what caused (and still does cause) the huge backlash. It is not the fact that "one random T Rex lost" (as it is often misportrayed by people who do not know the context of this), it is the fact that the producers and director of Jurassic Park 3 were very well aware that the most fond memory of millions of fans of the first 2 movies were the T Rexes portrayed as icons and while being very well aware of that fact the producers and director of JP3 were still hell bent on establishing that now T Rexes could not even dream of standing a chance against a Spinosaurus. So now everytime one watches a glorious T Rex moment in JP or TLW one instantly remembers that they are nothing but a quick 30 second kill of a Spinosaurus. That is what caused and still does cause the bitterness on that topic.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Many things were said in the Making Of JP3 and interviews and not all of them made sense. Maybe the spino had the potential of causing an extinction on Sorna but instead of stating it in interviews, they could have shown it in the film itself if they wanted to implement that idea (by having the characters pass by a herd or an entire carnivore pack/family that was presumably slaughtered by the spino) because the only other dinosaur that the spino kills is the rex and it's more the result of a fortuituous territorial fight than anything. Had they done this, then we might have been more enclined to believe that there was a threat looming upon Sorna's ecosystem.

That was because they really wanted to double down and really drive the point home that the Spinosaurus was SO superior to the T Rex that it could take down both T Rexes and other dinosaurs like nothing. That is what caused (and still does cause) the huge backlash. It is not the fact that "one random T Rex lost" (as it is often misportrayed by people who do not know the context of this), it is the fact that the producers and director of Jurassic Park 3 were very well aware that the most fond memory of millions of fans of the first 2 movies were the T Rexes portrayed as icons and while being very well aware of that fact the producers and director of JP3 were still hell bent on establishing that now T Rexes could not even dream of standing a chance against a Spinosaurus. So now everytime one watches a glorious T Rex moment in JP or TLW one instantly remembers that they are nothing but a quick 30 second kill of a Spinosaurus. That is what caused and still does cause the bitterness on that topic.

No, it was not the reason. It's because Trevorrow needed a reason to shift away from the islands and went with the "last dinosaurs on earth" route, to make the whole rescue mission logical. Otherwise, noone would save those animals, if they knew that there's a second island full with them. Fact is, the Spinosaurus would never, and I repeat, NEVER win against the rex family, any large Sauropod or a group of raptors (even got killed by those in a different script) and wouldn't cause an extinction. This was simply part of Horners stupid T.rex is a boring scavenger agenda. I blame Trevorrow for using a totally different Island as the "new home" for the dinosaurs. If the rumors were true, that they first wanted to bring the animals on Sorna, then this was the right idea. Lockwood doing Hammond a favour and bringing the animals to Hammonds nature preserve. Of course, it won't happen and the dinosaurs would went to the mainland etc.

IMO the DPG should've built a different story about Sorna's fate. They've went a pretty easy route with the whole "the new dinosaurs collapsed the eco system" thing. They've should've went mainly with the whole poaching stuff, that even got mentioned in the first Masrani website. Masrani and InGen decided to turn all the attention that was on Sorna from the public eye. Masrani simply could've lied about Sorna (empty) and after the park was successfull, the public simply forgot about the second island and it became a "Lost World" again.

The Spinosaurus causing an extinction on Isla Sorna never made sense to me. It was one dinosaur, and the island already housed a plethora of predators. The fact that, according to newer sources, Isla Sorna was doing fairly alright until around 2004, makes me think that's just hogwash hype from Horner (I'm sure most of what he said in JP3 production was anyway). The introduction of all the illegal species caused a population mishap, but it was never the Spinosaurus specifically, and it took ~5 years for damage to be significant to the ecosystem.

Either way, I'm still erring on the side of caution that the DPG is simply misleading the general public and Sorna is doing fine.

Hi. Siberian Mammoths are mentioned in Camp Cretaceous, directly tying in to the Masrani viral site.
https://twitter.com/jurassic_korea/status/1301690758831849472

Are the viral sites that important?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUGBTxQ0nh0

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Hi. Siberian Mammoths are mentioned in Camp Cretaceous, directly tying in to the Masrani viral site.
https://twitter.com/jurassic_korea/status/1301690758831849472

Considering how that's a little kids show that's mainly made as a stand-alone thing, can we really count that as canon, though? Seems more like cheap advertising to me.

Dr. Wu wrote:

Are the viral sites that important?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUGBTxQ0nh0

NGL, I found Klayton's mindset of "They weren't going back to Sorna anyway. Therefore, it doesn't care" mindset an excuse for lazy storytelling/bad continuality. Even some of the commenters get why some people find the sites to be crutch.


Also, even IF I were to accept these sites as canon, it would be self defeating.


1. They would pose more questions then answers: Why didn't they move some of the Sorna dinos to the other islands when they moved them to Nublar? Why didn't they just wipe out some of the carnivores by paying some big game hunters?


2. They take an already improvised franchise and outright bastardize it by making the first 2 sequels pointless.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Dr. Wu wrote:

The lore evolves and for many that's fun to see.

Well, learning that Sorna's dinosaurs were either killed or captured for JW off-screen and that Jurassic Park had less dinosaurs species than we thought it had wasn't fun for me as I think that these decisions impoverished the franchise's universe.

You might get away with keeping TLW canon and ignore JP3, since most fans still don't like it. But make BOTH the Sorna movies worthless by wiping out most, if not all the population for the sake of a new mainland plot? Sorry, but that's not worth it to me. Even more so considering how I have SERIOUS doubts about the basis of said plot.


I get that fans want in-canon stuff, but to rely on a site that makes the first two sequels pointless, let alone the fact that barely anybody else sees, is simply self-defeating to me.

I don't rely on the viral sites as the films give just enough info.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Hi. Siberian Mammoths are mentioned in Camp Cretaceous, directly tying in to the Masrani viral site.
https://twitter.com/jurassic_korea/status/1301690758831849472

Considering how that's a little kids show that's mainly made as a stand-alone thing, can we really count that as canon, though? Seems more like cheap advertising to me.

The producers of the show stated that the show is canon. They also were in contact with Trevorrow and even Spielberg approved some things in the show. How is that not canon? By your definitions, are all expanded media not canon? What about The Evolution of Claire? Is that not canon as well? Because The Evolution of Claire explains that Masrani shipped dinosaurs from Sorna to Nublar for the new park. That explains the Sorna situation well enough, don't you think?

Also, other franchises, most notably Star Wars, also rely heavily on expanded media, such as comics, novels, animated shows, to explain or give context to events or characters that may not have been explained so well in the main movies. Why can't Jurassic World do the same?

Bbrink1996 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Hi. Siberian Mammoths are mentioned in Camp Cretaceous, directly tying in to the Masrani viral site.
https://twitter.com/jurassic_korea/status/1301690758831849472

Considering how that's a little kids show that's mainly made as a stand-alone thing, can we really count that as canon, though? Seems more like cheap advertising to me.

The producers of the show stated that the show is canon. They also were in contact with Trevorrow and even Spielberg approved some things in the show. How is that not canon? By your definitions, are all expanded media not canon? What about The Evolution of Claire? Is that not canon as well? Because The Evolution of Claire explains that Masrani shipped dinosaurs from Sorna to Nublar for the new park. That explains the Sorna situation well enough, don't you think?

Also, other franchises, most notably Star Wars, also rely heavily on expanded media, such as comics, novels, animated shows, to explain or give context to events or characters that may not have been explained so well in the main movies. Why can't Jurassic World do the same?

Here's the thing. It's one thing to expand the brand al la expanded media. It's another thing to outright lean on them as a crutch. And quite frankly, that's what the JP franchise has been doing. Even niche franchises like Godzilla don't relay on sites as heavily like ours does. As The Geeky Zoologist said, fans should NOT be told to do their homework by going to a site when they should demand the answers to a movie be answered within the movies.

Besides, even IF I were to accept the sites as such, the fact that they say that the Sorna population is either wiped out or heavily reduced means that the lore would be bastardized. Why accept the sites as expanding the lore when it impoverishes the lore? That's just simply illogical thinking.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Here's the thing. It's one thing to expand the brand al la expanded media. It's another thing to outright lean on them as a crutch. And quite frankly, that's what the JP franchise has been doing. Even niche franchises like Godzilla don't relay  on sites as heavily like ours does. As The Geeky Zoologist said, fans should NOT be told to do their homework by going to a site when they should demand the answers to a movie be answered within the movies.

Besides, even IF I were to accept the sites as such, the fact that they say that the Sorna population is either wiped out or heavily reduced means that the lore would be bastardized. Why accept the sites as expanding the lore when it impoverishes the lore? That's just simply illogical thinking.

But certain things have been confirmed outside of these websites. The mammoth cloning thing was mentioned in Camp Cretaceous and the emptying of Sorna was mentioned in Evolution of Claire. Doesn't that confirm the website's legitmacy with regards to it being canon? Also, I think you're overestimating how much the JW franchise relies on those sites. They are mostly filled with additional info that's fun for fans but is in no way required to enjoy the movies. Regular moviegoers don't know the difference between Nublar and Sorna, even when JP3 made it a point to differentiate them. People, besides fans, just forget that and only fans wanted to know more about Sorna. We got that info through those sites.

The answers you demand to be answered within the movies just weren't relevant in the movie. Imagine if during JW, Owen or Claire turn towards the camera and go "So, here's what happened to Sorna...", only fans would get that. To regular moviegoers, they're all on the same island for all they really care so extensively explaining something that people, with the exception of us fans, wouldn't understand or care about is unnecessary. Trust me, I too would love to see everything explained in the movies but we don't always get our way, movies are productes after all and being marketed to the biggest audience possible, sometimes means fans draw the short end of the stick. The websites, animated show and novel are a decent substitute and make up for that in my opinion.

Also, I don't see how Sorna being empty now bastardizes the lore. In-universe, wouldn't it be much easier to capture already existing animals for a new park rather than going through the process of breeding an entire new population? Doesn't seem that much of stretch to me so I don't really understand why you think it damages the lore or it being illogical thinking?

Bbrink1996 wrote:

Regular moviegoers don't know the difference between Nublar and Sorna, even when JP3 made it a point to differentiate them. People, besides fans, just forget that and only fans wanted to know more about Sorna. We got that info through those sites.

It's not because a part of the general audience confuse the two islands or that many thinks that only fans care about Sorna's fate that they should have so easily discard it. As Sorna played a huge part in two thirds of the original trilogy and has a huge role within the lore, the new trilogy should have treated it better.

Bbrink1996 wrote:

The answers you demand to be answered within the movies just weren't relevant in the movie. Imagine if during JW, Owen or Claire turn towards the camera and go "So, here's what happened to Sorna...", only fans would get that. To regular moviegoers, they're all on the same island for all they really care so extensively explaining something that people, with the exception of us fans, wouldn't understand or care about is unnecessary.

Since Fallen Kingdom is about saving the last dinosaurs of Earth, I'm pretty sure that for many people, even among the general audience, things must have unfolded like this:

*FK's BBC report scene is screened. The audience is told that Nublar's dinosaurs are the last on Earth.*

Random viewer: "Wait, weren't there also dinosaurs on another island, that we saw in the first two sequels? Sure, maybe it wasn't relevant to talk about it in Jurassic World but right now, I would like to know what happened to them, movie. I mean, even if Nublar's dinosaurs are all killed off by the volcano, there are still those of the other island so the situation isn't as dire as they pretends it is, right? Nothing was said about them in the last movie so I assume they are still there."

*Someone whisper in the viewer's ear*

Random viewer: "What do you mean by the other island was emptied? How and when did that happened?"

*More whispers*

Random viewer: "While they were building Jurassic World? So that Masrani guy from the last movie just wiped his ass with Hammond's speech at the end of JP2?"

*More whispers*

Random viewer: "It's only explained on a fookin' website?! They can't just discard an important piece of their universe like that. Even if I'm not the biggest fan of JP2 and JP3, I know that the other island was a huge deal back in the late 90s and the 2000s and I would have liked to see them adress on-screen what happened to the other island and its dinosaurs, even if was during a small flashback at the beginning of the first Jurassic World."

*More whipsers*

Random viewer: "I should have consulted that website first?! Feck off, movie! I am here to enjoy a story, not to do some research and homework like a bloody student!  You are supposed to be self-sufficient in terms of given information, not relying on some website to explain an essential part of your backstory like a old man that must rely on its cane to walk.  Oh well, at least you're not putting your political context in tie-in novels like the new Star Wars trilogy did..."

Bbrink1996 wrote:

Also, I don't see how Sorna being empty now bastardizes the lore. In-universe, wouldn't it be much easier to capture already existing animals for a new park rather than going through the process of breeding an entire new population? Doesn't seem that much of stretch to me so I don't really understand why you think it damages the lore or it being illogical thinking?

Because it undermines the protagonists' victory at the end of The Lost World among other things. When you work on a saga, you must acknowledge in some way or at least respect what the previous installments each brought, regardless of their inherent quality, and you have to make sure that none of them would feel useless after the release of the installment on which you are working. Maybe the plundering of Sorna's ecosystem make sense on a technical standpoint as it could have happened, but at a larger scale, that of the saga, it just feels as a cheap way to get rid of a huge element that might have posed a challenge during the writing of the Jurassic World trilogy as a whole. I am not writing that the very idea of the end of Sorna's Lost World is bad, but if one choose this idea, he/she must give it some decent treatment as it's something that was important and tragic in-universe, and not quickly explain it in a few lines on some website or novel like if it was some afterthought brought up to fill one of the new films' plothole.

NikoRex wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Many things were said in the Making Of JP3 and interviews and not all of them made sense. Maybe the spino had the potential of causing an extinction on Sorna but instead of stating it in interviews, they could have shown it in the film itself if they wanted to implement that idea (by having the characters pass by a herd or an entire carnivore pack/family that was presumably slaughtered by the spino) because the only other dinosaur that the spino kills is the rex and it's more the result of a fortuituous territorial fight than anything. Had they done this, then we might have been more enclined to believe that there was a threat looming upon Sorna's ecosystem.

That was because they really wanted to double down and really drive the point home that the Spinosaurus was SO superior to the T Rex that it could take down both T Rexes and other dinosaurs like nothing. That is what caused (and still does cause) the huge backlash. It is not the fact that "one random T Rex lost" (as it is often misportrayed by people who do not know the context of this), it is the fact that the producers and director of Jurassic Park 3 were very well aware that the most fond memory of millions of fans of the first 2 movies were the T Rexes portrayed as icons and while being very well aware of that fact the producers and director of JP3 were still hell bent on establishing that now T Rexes could not even dream of standing a chance against a Spinosaurus. So now everytime one watches a glorious T Rex moment in JP or TLW one instantly remembers that they are nothing but a quick 30 second kill of a Spinosaurus. That is what caused and still does cause the bitterness on that topic.

No, it was not the reason. It's because Trevorrow needed a reason to shift away from the islands and went with the "last dinosaurs on earth" route, to make the whole rescue mission logical. Otherwise, noone would save those animals, if they knew that there's a second island full with them. Fact is, the Spinosaurus would never, and I repeat, NEVER win against the rex family, any large Sauropod or a group of raptors (even got killed by those in a different script) and wouldn't cause an extinction. This was simply part of Horners stupid T.rex is a boring scavenger agenda. I blame Trevorrow for using a totally different Island as the "new home" for the dinosaurs. If the rumors were true, that they first wanted to bring the animals on Sorna, then this was the right idea. Lockwood doing Hammond a favour and bringing the animals to Hammonds nature preserve. Of course, it won't happen and the dinosaurs would went to the mainland etc.

IMO the DPG should've built a different story about Sorna's fate. They've went a pretty easy route with the whole "the new dinosaurs collapsed the eco system" thing. They've should've went mainly with the whole poaching stuff, that even got mentioned in the first Masrani website. Masrani and InGen decided to turn all the attention that was on Sorna from the public eye. Masrani simply could've lied about Sorna (empty) and after the park was successfull, the public simply forgot about the second island and it became a "Lost World" again.

Uh yes, that was the reason. Because I am taking about Jurassic Park 3 not Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. At no point was I talking about the reasons why Trevorrow wanted to take the series in a new direction. I was talking about what caused the backlash of fans (and the general public) towards the Spinosaurus in JP3. At no point was I talking about Masrani or the reasons why Trevorrow wants to take dinosaurs to the mainland. You are mixing things up. I was only explaining why the Spinosaurus is so unpopular and infamous with audiences.