General Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom News Thread V.1

Troyal1 wrote:

From Reddit 



"I can imagine Rexey and Blue becoming buddies on the island. Rexey keeps to herself, but Blue just sort of follows her around. Slowly Rexey begins to accept Blue."



Please no.......

You know... not gonna lie, I could enjoy this.

In a fan-made animated short film, NOT the main movie!! There is such a thing as listening too much to fans.

Yes I don't want another Rogue One.

Anyways. The one that wrote it probably had enjoyed this far too much
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35204936

But did not read this
http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/30/goat-and-tigers-bromance-ends-after-stupid-goat-pushes-his-luck-now-zoo-wants-to-find-him-a-woman-5652637/

Or this
http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/n0685-tiger-and-goat-friendship-was-all-a-pr-stunt-says-safari-park-insider/

Closest I could imagine is Blue scavenging Rexy's kills. Of course only while she's away from the meal

Some of these comments make me question whether we all live on same planet
http://jurassicoutpost.com/original-rex-confirmed-jurassic-world-2-sequel/

"I’m starting to think there will be an even better park this time.I think it will be more cruel however, with Dinosaur fights, Raptor hunts and such."

"They should totally kill her off in the last film. She does protecting Malcolm and Alan and the others and they try to comfort her until she finally draws her last breath"

"I sure hope that if Rexy does actually return, she either dies in the movie protecting (unknowingly, cause that would be stupid imo) our main characters from a new dinosaur, or she of course has a scene like JW, being Queen once more. I think it would be extremely sad to see Ian Malcolm or Grey or heck, even Owen comforting her during her death like he did with the Apatosaurus."

"it’s awesome & they used use her the same way she did in JP1 the way she looked is what i mean"

Mistral wrote:

Some of these comments make me question whether we all live on same planet
http://jurassicoutpost.com/original-rex-confirmed-jurassic-world-2-sequel/

"I’m starting to think there will be an even better park this time.I think it will be more cruel however, with Dinosaur fights, Raptor hunts and such."

"They should totally kill her off in the last film. She does protecting Malcolm and Alan and the others and they try to comfort her until she finally draws her last breath"

"I sure hope that if Rexy does actually return, she either dies in the movie protecting (unknowingly, cause that would be stupid imo) our main characters from a new dinosaur, or she of course has a scene like JW, being Queen once more. I think it would be extremely sad to see Ian Malcolm or Grey or heck, even Owen comforting her during her death like he did with the Apatosaurus."

"it’s awesome & they used use her the same way she did in JP1 the way she looked is what i mean"

Some of those responses... :hahaha:

The first one has me scratching my head; I think the whole park phase of the franchise has gone Chapter 11 without a chance of resurgence. Never-mind the notion of dinosaur pit fights, which while conceptually cool (like something in a Ray Harryhausen film) would serve no purpose in the sequel.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

But surely Bayona, who from what I've heard, has more freedom then what those two had, would be able to put what happened in the first 2 sequels connect better to this new trilogy. I just don't see how the can just ignore them. Maybe JP3, but not TLW, let alone both.

Why do I sometimes feel like I'm on another planet... one which I can't tell is rational or not.

I mean, we're all on the same page when it comes to knowledge about these productions, but it feels like we see-saw between eagerly anticipating them and dreading them despite the lack of overriding signs of trouble.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

But surely Bayona, who from what I've heard, has more freedom then what those two had, would be able to put what happened in the first 2 sequels connect better to this new trilogy. I just don't see how the can just ignore them. Maybe JP3, but not TLW, let alone both.

I'm being mostly pessimistic, true, but from the direction we seem to be going - returning to Nublar, Blue and Rexy back, it's like Trevorrow doesn't understand the basics of what JP TRULY is, and instead sees it only as what he wants it to be. For example, here he implies that he doesn't feel that TLW and JP/// worked. Here, Trevorrow insists that JW must have a more light-hearted tone, less terrifying than JP or TLW, more akin to The Goonies. Here, he talks about how nostalgia was a necessary component to the rebuilding the franchise. And here, he all but flat out states that he didn't like TLW because it didn't have enough humor for him. Trevorrow's formula to a JP film is lighthearted tone + nostalgia + humor. That's not Jurassic Park. That's a comedic spoof.

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

But surely Bayona, who from what I've heard, has more freedom then what those two had, would be able to put what happened in the first 2 sequels connect better to this new trilogy. I just don't see how the can just ignore them. Maybe JP3, but not TLW, let alone both.

I'm being mostly pessimistic, true, but from the direction we seem to be going - returning to Nublar, Blue and Rexy back, it's like Trevorrow doesn't understand the basics of what JP TRULY is, and instead sees it only as what he wants it to be. For example, here he implies that he doesn't feel that TLW and JP/// worked. Here, Trevorrow insists that JW must have a more light-hearted tone, less terrifying than JP or TLW, more akin to The Goonies. Here, he talks about how nostalgia was a necessary component to the rebuilding the franchise. And here, he all but flat out states that he didn't like TLW because it didn't have enough humor for him. Trevorrow's formula to a JP film is lighthearted tone + nostalgia + humor. That's not Jurassic Park. That's a comedic spoof.

But isn't Bayona known for being dark? Because that's what I remember hearing about him. Not only that, but isn't their a point where pressure from fans becomes too much for a movie studio to ignore? Look at how Fox ret-conned X3 and most-if not all-of Wolverine: Origins out of existence via Days Of Future Past, in large part due to fan outrage.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

But surely Bayona, who from what I've heard, has more freedom then what those two had, would be able to put what happened in the first 2 sequels connect better to this new trilogy. I just don't see how the can just ignore them. Maybe JP3, but not TLW, let alone both.

I'm being mostly pessimistic, true, but from the direction we seem to be going - returning to Nublar, Blue and Rexy back, it's like Trevorrow doesn't understand the basics of what JP TRULY is, and instead sees it only as what he wants it to be. For example, here he implies that he doesn't feel that TLW and JP/// worked. Here, Trevorrow insists that JW must have a more light-hearted tone, less terrifying than JP or TLW, more akin to The Goonies. Here, he talks about how nostalgia was a necessary component to the rebuilding the franchise. And here, he all but flat out states that he didn't like TLW because it didn't have enough humor for him. Trevorrow's formula to a JP film is lighthearted tone + nostalgia + humor. That's not Jurassic Park. That's a comedic spoof.

But isn't Bayona known for being dark? Because that's what I remember hearing about him. Not only that, but isn't their a point where pressure from fans becomes too much for a movie studio to ignore? Look at how Fox ret-conned X3 and most-if not all-of Wolverine: Origins out of existence via Days Of Future Past, in large part due to fan outrage.

Bayona is, but Trevorrow is not only a producer, but the lead writer as well. If the script is whimsical and the tone is dark, it creates contrasting atmosphere.

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

But surely Bayona, who from what I've heard, has more freedom then what those two had, would be able to put what happened in the first 2 sequels connect better to this new trilogy. I just don't see how the can just ignore them. Maybe JP3, but not TLW, let alone both.

I'm being mostly pessimistic, true, but from the direction we seem to be going - returning to Nublar, Blue and Rexy back, it's like Trevorrow doesn't understand the basics of what JP TRULY is, and instead sees it only as what he wants it to be. For example, here he implies that he doesn't feel that TLW and JP/// worked. Here, Trevorrow insists that JW must have a more light-hearted tone, less terrifying than JP or TLW, more akin to The Goonies. Here, he talks about how nostalgia was a necessary component to the rebuilding the franchise. And here, he all but flat out states that he didn't like TLW because it didn't have enough humor for him. Trevorrow's formula to a JP film is lighthearted tone + nostalgia + humor. That's not Jurassic Park. That's a comedic spoof.

But isn't Bayona known for being dark? Because that's what I remember hearing about him. Not only that, but isn't their a point where pressure from fans becomes too much for a movie studio to ignore? Look at how Fox ret-conned X3 and most-if not all-of Wolverine: Origins out of existence via Days Of Future Past, in large part due to fan outrage.

Bayona is, but Trevorrow is not only a producer, but the lead writer as well. If the script is whimsical and the tone is dark, it creates contrasting atmosphere.

I just think that pressure from fans will force Universal to connect the first 2 sequels to this new trilogy in some way that's more solid then it is. Even if the higher ups are kind of forced to do so kicking and screaming.

Just a minute. I may not know where CT-1138 gets the idea of kid friendly Jurassic park movies with sing alongs (except maybe the land before time), but just know that we don't know for sure if that's what's happening until we have more evidence in the form of JW2 details. After all, I can read the highlights of the Trevorrow + Bayona interview over and over again and not find a single sentence regarding Land Before Time akin situations for this specific saga. Even if we did, that's why I'm @ University of Colorado Denver, so I can learn to make movies and fix Jurassic Park to the dark tone it used to be.

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

But surely Bayona, who from what I've heard, has more freedom then what those two had, would be able to put what happened in the first 2 sequels connect better to this new trilogy. I just don't see how the can just ignore them. Maybe JP3, but not TLW, let alone both.

I'm being mostly pessimistic, true, but from the direction we seem to be going - returning to Nublar, Blue and Rexy back, it's like Trevorrow doesn't understand the basics of what JP TRULY is, and instead sees it only as what he wants it to be. For example, here he implies that he doesn't feel that TLW and JP/// worked. Here, Trevorrow insists that JW must have a more light-hearted tone, less terrifying than JP or TLW, more akin to The Goonies. Here, he talks about how nostalgia was a necessary component to the rebuilding the franchise. And here, he all but flat out states that he didn't like TLW because it didn't have enough humor for him. Trevorrow's formula to a JP film is lighthearted tone + nostalgia + humor. That's not Jurassic Park. That's a comedic spoof.

I'd much rather he make the film that he wants to make then compromise what his vision is.

Also, what JP "truly is" is entirely subjective. One could just as easily say the same thing about your take on what JP "truly is".

At the end of the day, it's up to the viewer.

Since when has Jurassic Park had an anticorporatism theme? Or involved war bred dinos? Or dinosaurs teaming up like the Avengers for a climactic dino battle? Since when has Jurassic Park defined itself through humor? Since when has Jurassic Park been about pandering to childhood nostalgia? Or been for children like The Goonies? It hasn't, at least before JW. And if that's the direction this franchise is going, I'm out.

What's wrong with a JP movie having an anticorporatism theme ? Crichton as always been critical towards technology and society as a whole and maybe he didn't treat anticorporatism in the JP novels but that doesn't mean this theme wouldn't have his place among the JP saga.
If screenwriters had the obligation to restrain themselves only to themes that were featured in the base material, creativity would dwindle as the franchise gets more and more instalments.

And as for the military applications of dinosaurs, maybe it wasn't introduced in the best way in JW (I wish that Hoskins was treated more seriously and that his arguments were more tangible and developed) but even in the 21st Century, animals are being studied and considered for military applications (Mine-clearing Gambian rats are a prime example) so the basic idea is not that far-fretched and I have to admit that I laugh everytime when someone make the assumption Military use of dinos = dinos with guns mounted on their backs because treating this theme doesn't obligatory mean turning the JP franchise into Dino D-Day or something like this, at the condition of course of having a director and a writer who know their subject and wants to treat it in a realistic way.
If Crichton had wrote more JP books, I'm pretty sure that this subject would have been approached in a way or another because using Nature to deals with some of mankind's issues in a lucrative way, what Ian Malcom calls a "Raider mentality", is very Crichtonian at the core.

CT-1138 wrote:

Since when has Jurassic Park defined itself through humor? Since when has Jurassic Park been about pandering to childhood nostalgia? Or been for children like The Goonies? It hasn't, at least before JW.

I actually agree with you on those and I understand your gripes.

CT-1138 wrote:

Since when has Jurassic Park had an anticorporatism theme? Or involved war bred dinos? Or dinosaurs teaming up like the Avengers for a climactic dino battle? Since when has Jurassic Park defined itself through humor? Since when has Jurassic Park been about pandering to childhood nostalgia? Or been for children like The Goonies? It hasn't, at least before JW. And if that's the direction this franchise is going, I'm out.

The Lost World had an anti-corporatism theme via Ludlow and his own mainland JP 2.0 idea. And dinosaurs and children-and by proxy childhood nostalgia-have always be connected. After all, children were and always will be a big part of the JP franchise.

With that being said, I do see your point, which is a valid one. However, I think we should wait until we know more about this movie then rush to judgement. It's still very early on and we don't know a lot of things.

Nostalgia overload is there because the market research and focus groups told producers that's what makes most money in soft reboot.

As for kids and childhood and all that crap, it's a myth that they should automatically be part of every film. A thing they just have not been able to get rid of because it's an easy formulatic way and has worked in the first film. Spielberg used Kelly from Crichton's novel, but even she is something that should've been removed IMO. JP3 and JW should've advanced. But anyway I don't want to start arguing over this with Rhedo again since we've already discussed it to death and neither of us agrees with the other party. So we'll disagree.

BD Wong will begin filming very soon :

https://www.instagram.com/p/BSio7ccjf95/?taken-by=wongbd&hl=en

Mistral wrote:

But anyway I don't want to start arguing over this with Rhedo again since we've already discussed it to death and neither of us agrees with the other party. So we'll disagree.

Then you shouldn't have responded to my post in the first place.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

But anyway I don't want to start arguing over this with Rhedo again since we've already discussed it to death and neither of us agrees with the other party. So we'll disagree.

Then you shouldn't have responded to my post in the first place.

It wasn't really directed to just you and you know it, so stop coming at me. CT-1138 brought it up. I just wanted to spell it out so that we don't have to go into fights again.

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I just wish we could go back to Sorna and see what the other islands have. I mean, they are able to gloss over the other islands, but I don't think they can ignore Sorna forever. If they don't bring it up in JP5/JW2, then they might have to in JP6/JW3.

Of course they can! If Trevorrow and Connolly want their dinos to be the main characters and run round being dino sidekicks in the same nostalgia packed island, then that's what we're going to get. Remember, Trevorrow isn't a fan of the other movies, he particularly thought TLW was too dark and humorless. From now on, we're getting happy little dino friend adventures. Hey, we might even get a sing along song this time. I may not like it, but that seems to be the future of this franchise. Pet dinos with cute little pet names like Rexy, and Indy, and Mosy, where all the dinosaurs get together and have fun little parties together because they're teh bestest friends evar!

But surely Bayona, who from what I've heard, has more freedom then what those two had, would be able to put what happened in the first 2 sequels connect better to this new trilogy. I just don't see how the can just ignore them. Maybe JP3, but not TLW, let alone both.

I'm being mostly pessimistic, true, but from the direction we seem to be going - returning to Nublar, Blue and Rexy back, it's like Trevorrow doesn't understand the basics of what JP TRULY is, and instead sees it only as what he wants it to be. For example, here he implies that he doesn't feel that TLW and JP/// worked. Here, Trevorrow insists that JW must have a more light-hearted tone, less terrifying than JP or TLW, more akin to The Goonies. Here, he talks about how nostalgia was a necessary component to the rebuilding the franchise. And here, he all but flat out states that he didn't like TLW because it didn't have enough humor for him. Trevorrow's formula to a JP film is lighthearted tone + nostalgia + humor. That's not Jurassic Park. That's a comedic spoof.

Sadly I'm worried about everything you said tbh.

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

But anyway I don't want to start arguing over this with Rhedo again since we've already discussed it to death and neither of us agrees with the other party. So we'll disagree.

Then you shouldn't have responded to my post in the first place.

It wasn't really directed to just you and you know it, so stop coming at me. CT-1138 brought it up. I just wanted to spell it out so that we don't have to go into fights again.

No I didn't. Sometimes you make your points so vague that it's hard to tell if you're serious or who you are responding too. Don't blame me for misinterpreting who you were taking about when you never specified to whom it was about.

CT-1138 wrote:

Since when has Jurassic Park had an anticorporatism theme?

Since the first novel.

CT-1138 wrote:

Or involved war bred dinos?

All signs, including statements from Trevorrow himself, point to that not being the case going forward.

CT-1138 wrote:

Or dinosaurs teaming up like the Avengers for a climactic dino battle?

One standalone scene (which most people seemed to love) doesn't define an entire film or franchise.

CT-1138 wrote:

Since when has Jurassic Park defined itself through humor?

Every JP film has had an aspect of humor to it, as most movies of this ilk do.

CT-1138 wrote:

Since when has Jurassic Park been about pandering to childhood nostalgia?

Since The Lost World stole it's entire final act from the 1925 movie adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's  The Lost World.

CT-1138 wrote:

Or been for children like The Goonies?

The franchise, in particular the first film, has always had a sense of whimsy and wonder that was meant to hook children. Not to mention the fact that there are children in every single film.

CT-1138 wrote:

It hasn't, at least before JW.

I beg to differ.

CT-1138 wrote:

And if that's the direction this franchise is going, I'm out.

Cool.

@tyrantlizard

Sorry to be unrelated but how do you break down quotes on this site like you just did? And from multiple posters?

All i have to say on the JW2 debate front is that i have hope that Bayona and Colin can absolutely make this a special and different film. I think we have the right director, plenty of money and a bunch of passionate actors on board. So i am remaining hopeful.

Although i do worry about some things mentioned before. I hope Colin doesn't take it down the route he's talking about.

Troyal1 wrote:

@tyrantlizard

Sorry to be unrelated but how do you break down quotes on this site like you just did? And from multiple posters?

Just copy the quote tags from the beginning and end of the post you're quoting and wrap them around individual sections of whatever section you're trying to break off.

Not sure how the multiquoting works though.

Troyal1 wrote:

All i have to say on the JW2 debate front is that i have hope that Bayona and Colin can absolutely make this a special and different film. I think we have the right director, plenty of money and a bunch of passionate actors on board. So i am remaining hopeful.

Although i do worry about some things mentioned before. I hope Colin doesn't take it down the route he's talking about.

I'm not blind to the worries that some people may have over what shape the films are going to take moving forward, but I just think it's somewhat arrogant to suggest that if it doesn't conform to the exact parameters that a person expects, that it somehow spits in the face of what came before it. After all, it's all subjective.

For example, JP has always been about one thing for me. The dinosaurs. Everything else is secondary to me. Does that mean my way of thinking is "correct"? Of course not, because there is no "correct" way of thinking, in terms of what a film or franchise means to a specific person.

It hearkens back to a debate a few people were a while back about which characters were more "important" to the franchise. My argument was that a character is as important as the viewer sees them. If you, as a viewer, are more invested in manufacturing of dinosaurs, then you'd likely be more invested in Wu. However, if you're more invested in, say, Grant's journey through JP, then you'd obviously be more invested in Grant. There isn't a right or wrong answer as to which character is "more important". What matters is which character is more important TO YOU.

The same point, slightly modified, applies here.

Don't get me wrong, there are things that I, as a fan, want to see and don't want to see. For example, having a Rex in the film is of the utmost importance to me, and as a fan, would be extremely disappointed if it weren't. That being said, I'm not under the impression that the film/franchise should bend to my whims in order to still be Jurassic Park. There are certainly some traditions that I think the series should uphold, and some that I think can be changed/discarded, but my opinion on this matter is not law. I'm totally aware that my wants won't necessarily coincide with the wants of the rest of the viewing audience, and that's okay, because, as with any form of art, it's all subjective.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

What's wrong with a JP movie having an anticorporatism theme ? Crichton as always been critical towards technology and society as a whole and maybe he didn't treat anticorporatism in the JP novels but that doesn't mean this theme wouldn't have his place among the JP saga.

 The JP movies have had a long standing tradition of man being pitted against nature, and to see that dropped for some anticorporatism theme to spoof Hollywood blockbuster sequelitis didn't sit well with me. It felt wrong, like the soul of the franchise was being replaced by something else.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

If screenwriters had the obligation to restrain themselves only to themes that were featured in the base material, creativity would dwindle as the franchise gets more and more instalments.

Maybe it should end sooner than later. I said even before JP was even announced that I'd prefer JP end on a high note than devolve into one bad sequel after the other... or God forbid... a reboot, which JW arguably could be misconstrued as. People don't like to call the next move "Jurassic Park 5" because it makes the franchise sound like it's gone on for too long. But... it has. It really has. People don't want to admit it... but we're on the 4th JP sequel. They can pretend it's "Jurassic World 2", that it's only the first sequel in the Jurassic World franchise, but it's not. It's the 5th JP movie, and no amount of pretending will deny the fact that we're on a franchise that's gone on to it's 4th sequel.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

And as for the military applications of dinosaurs, maybe it wasn't introduced in the best way in JW (I wish that Hoskins was treated more seriously and that his arguments were more tangible and developed) but even in the 21st Century, animals are being studied and considered for military applications (Mine-clearing Gambian rats are a prime example) so the basic idea is not that far-fretched and I have to admit that I laugh everytime when someone make the assumption Military use of dinos = dinos with guns mounted on their backs because treating this theme doesn't obligatory mean turning the JP franchise into Dino D-Day or something like this, at the condition of course of having a director and a writer who know their subject and wants to treat it in a realistic way.

 Dinosaurs don't need guns strapped to their backs when they ARE the weapon. That's what doesn't sit well with me. Yeah, sure, we have bomb sniffers, mine clearer, and sonar mounted dolphins and stuff, but we don't actually take tigers and release them into enemy territory to track down and eat the enemy, as Hoskins would put it, "belt buckle and all." We don't make living weapons out of animals, and I don't see why it should be any different from dinosaurs. They're animals too.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

If Crichton had wrote more JP books, I'm pretty sure that this subject would have been approached in a way or another because using Nature to deals with some of mankind's issues in a lucrative way, what Ian Malcom calls a "Raider mentality", is very Crichtonian at the core.

Maybe. Honestly, mainland always seemed like the angle that Crichton had wanted to go in both books, but could never quite fit it into the story he ended up telling.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Lost World had an anti-corporatism theme via Ludlow and his own mainland JP 2.0 idea. And dinosaurs and children-and by proxy childhood nostalgia-have always be connected. After all, children were and always will be a big part of the JP franchise.

TLW I see as more pro-environmentalism than actually anticorporatism. It's more into the 90's "protect the environment" schtick than it was saying "Here's this corporation! Look at all the commercialistic pandering and product placement they've been reduced to! Isn't corporatism ruining everything that used to be cool?"

As for kids, dinosaurs aren't necessarily childish, and I HATE that equivalency with a passion. That if it's related to dinosaurs in any way, that it MUST be okay for kids. It's the same thought process for when parents brought their kids to see Sausage Fest and Deadpool. "Oh, it's a cartoon, I can bring my kid to see it!" "Oh, it's a superhero movie! I can totally bring my kid to see that!" As for whether or not kids should continue to be a part of this franchise? I honestly don't think this franchise requires kids to survive. It's a tradition, true, but in my opinion this franchise could do just as fine without children.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Since the first novel.

Oh? Examples of the anticorporatism in the novels?

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

All signs, including statements from Trevorrow himself, point to that not being the case going forward.

Wasn't talking about the future films, I'm talking about Jurassic World.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

One standalone scene (which most people seemed to love) doesn't define an entire film or franchise.

A lot of people love Transformers. In fact, it's made billions for Paramount. Just because it's popular, doesn't make it good. But, from how bloodthirsty this fandom seems for dino fights, you would think otherwise.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Every JP film has had an aspect of humor to it, as most movies of this ilk do.

Yeah, but humor isn't a key component of any of the films as Trevorrow seems to have implied multiple times.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Since The Lost World stole it's entire final act from the 1925 movie adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's  The Lost World.

That was pandering to Spielberg's nostalgia, not the audiences.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

The franchise, in particular the first film, has always had a sense of whimsy and wonder that was meant to hook children. Not to mention the fact that there are children in every single film.

But the films still evoked a sense of terror, far beyond JW. JW was easily the most lighthearted of the JP movies.

I understand that some people are worried that JP5 is going down a route that doesn't feel like Jurassic Park.

But, I feel like we're going through "Panic Mode" extremely early, when all we have is:

* Sneak peeks at props and sets without context.
* New as-of-yet unnamed characters with nothing revealed about them
* Bits and pieces of information with no context.
* No trailer.
* No title.
* Acclaimed director who is using source material (Crichton's novels) as inspiration. Director is also known for creating tense/moody films.

As for the information, here is all we know: Pro-Dinosaur activism. Claire is an activist. A mansion location. A museum location. Tyrannosaurus rex is a confirmed dinosaur. Helicopters and Unimogs are to be seen in some capacity. Isla Nublar will be seen in some capacity.

There are a hundred different scenarios that could happen with this.

Let's be patient and wait for more information to be released before we throw around any assumptions.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

@tyrantlizard

Sorry to be unrelated but how do you break down quotes on this site like you just did? And from multiple posters?

Just copy the quote tags from the beginning and end of the post you're quoting and wrap them around individual sections of whatever section you're trying to break off.

Not sure how the multiquoting works though.

Troyal1 wrote:

All i have to say on the JW2 debate front is that i have hope that Bayona and Colin can absolutely make this a special and different film. I think we have the right director, plenty of money and a bunch of passionate actors on board. So i am remaining hopeful.

Although i do worry about some things mentioned before. I hope Colin doesn't take it down the route he's talking about.

I'm not blind to the worries that some people may have over what shape the films are going to take moving forward, but I just think it's somewhat arrogant to suggest that if it doesn't conform to the exact parameters that a person expects, that it somehow spits in the face of what came before it. After all, it's all subjective.

For example, JP has always been about one thing for me. The dinosaurs. Everything else is secondary to me. Does that mean my way of thinking is "correct"? Of course not, because there is no "correct" way of thinking, in terms of what a film or franchise means to a specific person.

It hearkens back to a debate a few people were a while back about which characters were more "important" to the franchise. My argument was that a character is as important as the viewer sees them. If you, as a viewer, are more invested in manufacturing of dinosaurs, then you'd likely be more invested in Wu. However, if you're more invested in, say, Grant's journey through JP, then you'd obviously be more invested in Grant. There isn't a right or wrong answer as to which character is "more important". What matters is which character is more important TO YOU.

The same point, slightly modified, applies here.

Don't get me wrong, there are things that I, as a fan, want to see and don't want to see. For example, having a Rex in the film is of the utmost importance to me, and as a fan, would be extremely disappointed if it weren't. That being said, I'm not under the impression that the film/franchise should bend to my whims in order to still be Jurassic Park. There are certainly some traditions that I think the series should uphold, and some that I think can be changed/discarded, but my opinion on this matter is not law. I'm totally aware that my wants won't necessarily coincide with the wants of the rest of the viewing audience, and that's okay, because, as with any form of art, it's all subjective.

Hey man I sent you a PM regarding quotes if that's okay

And as far as the rest I agree 100%. I didn't mean to come off sounding like my way is the right way or it's my way or the highway for the franchise. I was just merely expressing that I do agree with a lot of his concerns and how he sees the franchise, and what he wants ETC. 

So I do apologize if it came off otherwise.