General Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom News Thread V.4

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

And that even counts how Universal tried to state that Spino skeleton in JW was that of the JP3 Spino despite all the clear differences between the two?

That statement isn't part of the website.

Well, that's what Universal said with that one virtual tour or whatever it was that they said.

not gonna lie, looking at that snapshot from the Spinosaurus easter egg has me thinking. If they did mean just the same species, they've worded that horrendously. If they do in fact mean it's the same Spinosaurus from the 3rd film when the hell did they decide this. You'd think it would've been mentioned either in Jurassic World or the marketing before the film came out.

That or at least either make it look like the JP3 Spino and have it be said in JW that it came to Nublar and died via Rexy's jaws. But they didn't even do those two things.

For all we know, the JP3 Spino could still be alive on Sorna. That would be far more plausible then Universal keep trying to convince the fanbase that the JW Spino skeleton was that of the JP3 Spino despite all the HUGE differences.

Bayona and Trevorrow at CCXP17 and Jurassic Park theme live:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Guys, I can't believe how many people in the comments are saying "why go back?", "You can make more Dinos" or "Let them die, who cares?". So many people lacking any slither of sympathy for sentient life forms.

Like, what do you mean why go back? Are people really this heartless? Don't answer, I know the answer is yes. lol.

To be fair, this trailer did a very poor job of explaining the setup of the rescue. I'm sure trailer 2 will do a better job. But they could have avoided all of this with a little exposition saying "the abandoned geothermal energy infrastructure has collapsed and is feeding the eruption". It's essentially a man made eruption. Also maybe show some of the political fight about whether to save the dinosaurs.

They seemed like they were more worried about showing us that Owen and Claire were not a couple and that he has a special relationship with Blue. We either don't need to know that stuff now or we already know it in the case of Blue.

NolaJP wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Guys, I can't believe how many people in the comments are saying "why go back?", "You can make more Dinos" or "Let them die, who cares?". So many people lacking any slither of sympathy for sentient life forms.

Like, what do you mean why go back? Are people really this heartless? Don't answer, I know the answer is yes. lol.

To be fair, this trailer did a very poor job of explaining the setup of the rescue. I'm sure trailer 2 will do a better job. But they could have avoided all of this with a little exposition saying "the abandoned geothermal energy infrastructure has collapsed and is feeding the eruption". It's essentially a man made eruption. Also maybe show some of the political fight about whether to save the dinosaurs.

They seemed like they were more worried about showing us that Owen and Claire were not a couple and that he has a special relationship with Blue. We either don't need to know that stuff now or we already know it in the case of Blue.

So true.

NolaJP wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Guys, I can't believe how many people in the comments are saying "why go back?", "You can make more Dinos" or "Let them die, who cares?". So many people lacking any slither of sympathy for sentient life forms.

Like, what do you mean why go back? Are people really this heartless? Don't answer, I know the answer is yes. lol.

To be fair, this trailer did a very poor job of explaining the setup of the rescue. I'm sure trailer 2 will do a better job. But they could have avoided all of this with a little exposition saying "the abandoned geothermal energy infrastructure has collapsed and is feeding the eruption". It's essentially a man made eruption. Also maybe show some of the political fight about whether to save the dinosaurs.

They seemed like they were more worried about showing us that Owen and Claire were not a couple and that he has a special relationship with Blue. We either don't need to know that stuff now or we already know it in the case of Blue.

But a lot of these criticisms stem from the plot synopsis. People just don't care about life enough to save it which is why they question the character's decision to go back to the island. And that's a shame, because it's not a problem with the plot, it's a problem with the people that have no empathy, criticising it.

This disturbing apathy and lack of any kind of emotional resonance towards the dinosaurs is what shocks and appalls me the most. They take (theoretical) moral dilemmas and turn them into plot holes or brand it an "idiot plot" to be mocked.

Barring the antagonist misfire that was the Spinosaurus and the deliberately diabolical Indominus rex, have we not had four prior movies to portray the dinosaurs as animals? Did none of the scenes of the herbivores being herbivores or carnivores being protective family groups account for anything?

Even assuming that Sorna is still in the films' canon (something that if it isn't brought up will be viewed as a crippling weakness on the film's part) and there are still dinosaurs on that island, that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs deserve to die by virtue of being what they are. Honestly, if there is some meta commentary about "who are the real monsters?" to be found here, I am this close to writing it out.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

This disturbing apathy and lack of any kind of emotional resonance towards the dinosaurs is what shocks and appalls me the most. They take (theoretical) moral dilemmas and turn them into plot holes or brand it an "idiot plot" to be mocked.

Barring the antagonist misfire that was the Spinosaurus and the deliberately diabolical Indominus rex, have we not had four prior movies to portray the dinosaurs as animals? Did none of the scenes of the herbivores being herbivores or carnivores being protective family groups account for nothing?

Even assuming that Sorna is still in the films' canon (something that if it isn't brought up will be viewed as a crippling weakness on the film's part) and there are still dinosaurs on that island, that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs deserve to die by virtue of being what they are. Honestly, if there is some meta commentary about "who are the real monsters?" to be found here, I am this close to writing it out.

Maybe so many movie fans are obsessed with superhero movies at this point, that dinosaurs are kind of an afterthought.

That and, let's face it, giving how even basic morals and norms have been thrown out the window and how much of that has been replaced by greed and selfishness, should we even be surprised at this point?

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

This disturbing apathy and lack of any kind of emotional resonance towards the dinosaurs is what shocks and appalls me the most. They take (theoretical) moral dilemmas and turn them into plot holes or brand it an "idiot plot" to be mocked.

Barring the antagonist misfire that was the Spinosaurus and the deliberately diabolical Indominus rex, have we not had four prior movies to portray the dinosaurs as animals? Did none of the scenes of the herbivores being herbivores or carnivores being protective family groups account for anything?

Even assuming that Sorna is still in the films' canon (something that if it isn't brought up will be viewed as a crippling weakness on the film's part) and there are still dinosaurs on that island, that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs deserve to die by virtue of being what they are. Honestly, if there is some meta commentary about "who are the real monsters?" to be found here, I am this close to writing it out.

Perfectly said. I even saw someone attacking Trevorrow on twitter simply because the antagonist of the film (Dr. Wu) described the Dinosaurs as being un-natural and that Trevorrow is backtracking on what the Dinosaurs are. Dr. Wu is only one character within the film, there are plenty of other characters that see them as animals. Even Alan Grant called them "Just animals" in Jurassic Park when they were petting the Brachiosaurus. People are reaching so hard to shoot this film down.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

This disturbing apathy and lack of any kind of emotional resonance towards the dinosaurs is what shocks and appalls me the most. They take (theoretical) moral dilemmas and turn them into plot holes or brand it an "idiot plot" to be mocked.

Barring the antagonist misfire that was the Spinosaurus and the deliberately diabolical Indominus rex, have we not had four prior movies to portray the dinosaurs as animals? Did none of the scenes of the herbivores being herbivores or carnivores being protective family groups account for anything?

Even assuming that Sorna is still in the films' canon (something that if it isn't brought up will be viewed as a crippling weakness on the film's part) and there are still dinosaurs on that island, that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs deserve to die by virtue of being what they are. Honestly, if there is some meta commentary about "who are the real monsters?" to be found here, I am this close to writing it out.

Great post.

Honestly, the types of criticisms being thrown at the premise of the film really don't paint a flattering portrait of society.

It's quite unsettling that so many people apparently hold the Ludlow/Hoskins mindset that "Extinct animals that have been brought back to life have no rights.".

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

This disturbing apathy and lack of any kind of emotional resonance towards the dinosaurs is what shocks and appalls me the most. They take (theoretical) moral dilemmas and turn them into plot holes or brand it an "idiot plot" to be mocked.

Barring the antagonist misfire that was the Spinosaurus and the deliberately diabolical Indominus rex, have we not had four prior movies to portray the dinosaurs as animals? Did none of the scenes of the herbivores being herbivores or carnivores being protective family groups account for anything?

Even assuming that Sorna is still in the films' canon (something that if it isn't brought up will be viewed as a crippling weakness on the film's part) and there are still dinosaurs on that island, that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs deserve to die by virtue of being what they are. Honestly, if there is some meta commentary about "who are the real monsters?" to be found here, I am this close to writing it out.

Great post.

Honestly, the types of criticisms being thrown at the premise of the film really don't paint a flattering portrait of society.

It's quite unsettling that so many people apparently hold the Ludlow/Hoskins mindset that "Extinct animals that have been brought back to life have no rights.".

Which is ironic since if a herd of mammoths were to be found in Alaska or Siberia, people would be petitioning like mad to protect them from big game hunters.

Well said Rhedo. We are definitely living in a world where if it is not a super hero film or a movie with fast Cars... it’s open to scrutiny. While I adore the comic book films, I don’t think there is a lot of bias against anything that’s not the same. More specifically with the MCU.

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

This disturbing apathy and lack of any kind of emotional resonance towards the dinosaurs is what shocks and appalls me the most. They take (theoretical) moral dilemmas and turn them into plot holes or brand it an "idiot plot" to be mocked.

Barring the antagonist misfire that was the Spinosaurus and the deliberately diabolical Indominus rex, have we not had four prior movies to portray the dinosaurs as animals? Did none of the scenes of the herbivores being herbivores or carnivores being protective family groups account for anything?

Even assuming that Sorna is still in the films' canon (something that if it isn't brought up will be viewed as a crippling weakness on the film's part) and there are still dinosaurs on that island, that doesn't mean that the dinosaurs deserve to die by virtue of being what they are. Honestly, if there is some meta commentary about "who are the real monsters?" to be found here, I am this close to writing it out.

Perfectly said. I even saw someone attacking Trevorrow on twitter simply because the antagonist of the film (Dr. Wu) described the Dinosaurs as being un-natural and that Trevorrow is backtracking on what the Dinosaurs are. Dr. Wu is only one character within the film, there are plenty of other characters that see them as animals. Even Alan Grant called them "Just animals" in Jurassic Park when they were petting the Brachiosaurus. People are reaching so hard to shoot this film down.

We don't know how Wu views his creations. That doesn't mean he doesn't see them as animals. I think he sees, but he also sees them as his creations, so he's their god. People are just whinning because it's Dr. Wu saying it, the "evil mad scientist". When Grant said he hated the dinosaurs and called them monsters nobody said a thing. I just ignore those people, you should do the same my friend.

TRK wrote:

Well said Rhedo. We are definitely living in a world where if it is not a super hero film or a movie with fast Cars... it’s open to scrutiny. While I adore the comic book films, I don’t think there is a lot of bias against anything that’s not the same. More specifically with the MCU.

We can add Star Wars too. Granted, the nostalgia goggles are off for most fans. But considering how it's so deeply institutionalized in pop culture, it can afford to blow of scrutiny with its army of fans.

I'm an MCU fan myself, but even I'm starting to get worried that it may get so powerful, that it might get to the point where everybody wants to see MCU movies and rarely see anything else, except a DC semi-standalone movie (Wonder Woman). And that's even if/when all other movie studios start to make good movies again.

It's actually a fear of mine that with 2018 being so packed with superhero movies that if JW:FK lacks enough good word of mouth with both the GA and fans, then it will underperform.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Beeg One wrote:

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

I think of the websites as canon the same way JPTG is canon. They are part of the film universe, but there are continuity errors, just like in any film.

I take the websites and Jurassic Park: The Game as being completely canon. They are both stated to be canon, and therefore they are through word of god until stated otherwise by Universal.

And that even counts how Universal tried to state that Spino skeleton in JW was that of the JP3 Spino despite all the clear differences between the two?

Yes. Fans don't get to decide what is canon, only Universal does.

The Beeg One wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Beeg One wrote:

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

I think of the websites as canon the same way JPTG is canon. They are part of the film universe, but there are continuity errors, just like in any film.

I take the websites and Jurassic Park: The Game as being completely canon. They are both stated to be canon, and therefore they are through word of god until stated otherwise by Universal.

And that even counts how Universal tried to state that Spino skeleton in JW was that of the JP3 Spino despite all the clear differences between the two?

Yes. Fans don't get to decide what is canon, only Universal does.

But when Universal decides what's canon despite the OVERWHELMING evidence saying that it's not the case, then at that point, they are simply making crap up. Just because Universal can decide what is canon doesn't mean that they can make up random bullcrap, let alone take the fanbase for a bunch of fools.

One can only suspend disbelief and take what Universal says for so long before common sense says "Ah.....No." Sorry, but most JP fans aren't going to beleive that the JW skeleton was that of the JP3 Spino, no matter how hard Universal tries to shove that lie down our throats.

When Universal did what it did, then there were only 2 things that come to mind.

1. They really thought that the fanbase was that dumb enough to believe that. Which winded up being wrong.

2. They planned it from the start, but did so in such a lazy, halfhearted way, that it ensured that it would be impossible for the fanbase as a whole to believe.

I suspend disbelief every time I watch a movie but I agree that the skeleton can't be the JP3 Spinosaurus but I don't think Universal meant it was. It was just worded poorly.

I'm beginning to wonder where exactly the idea of the Indoraptor falls into place within this story. From what we've seen, the film is based on a debate as to whether these man-made sentient life forms deserve rights and protection like other natural animals. So how does the Indoraptor fall into the story? I
If the main goal for Claire is to convince everyone that these animals deserve to live because they're animals, wouldn't the Indoraptor completely go against that? I'm really curious.

When it comes to hybrids I imagine Claire would now be completely against their creations. I can see Claire advocating the dinosaurs but condemning hybrids.

Claire: The dinosaurs deserve the right to live! Hybrids though should all be destroyed!

Dr. Wu wrote:

When it comes to hybrids I imagine Claire would now be completely against their creations. I can see Claire advocating the dinosaurs but condemning hybrids.

Claire: The dinosaurs deserve the right to live! Hybrids though should all be destroyed!

I can't wait to see their reaction when they learn Wu is messing with hybrids again and no one can stop him.

Dr. Wu wrote:

When it comes to hybrids I imagine Claire would now be completely against their creations. I can see Claire advocating the dinosaurs but condemning hybrids.

Claire: The dinosaurs deserve the right to live! Hybrids though should all be destroyed!

Like Owen told her, hybrids are not the most functional animals. They live in a bad condition due to them not even knowing what they are, so they start killing for sport, etc...
Hybrids represent human greed and indifference towards animal lives. At least in the Jurassic universe.

owenpratt wrote:

Dr. Wu wrote:

When it comes to hybrids I imagine Claire would now be completely against their creations. I can see Claire advocating the dinosaurs but condemning hybrids.

Claire: The dinosaurs deserve the right to live! Hybrids though should all be destroyed!

Like Owen told her, hybrids are not the most functional animals. They live in a bad condition due to them not even knowing what they are, so they start killing for sport, etc...
Hybrids represent human greed and indifference towards animal lives. At least in the Jurassic universe.

Hybrids are the evolution and making dinosaurs that really existed better.

#MakeDinosaursGreatAgain

Wumodeoff

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

owenpratt wrote:

Dr. Wu wrote:

When it comes to hybrids I imagine Claire would now be completely against their creations. I can see Claire advocating the dinosaurs but condemning hybrids.

Claire: The dinosaurs deserve the right to live! Hybrids though should all be destroyed!

Like Owen told her, hybrids are not the most functional animals. They live in a bad condition due to them not even knowing what they are, so they start killing for sport, etc...
Hybrids represent human greed and indifference towards animal lives. At least in the Jurassic universe.

Hybrids are the evolution and making dinosaurs that really existed better.

#MakeDinosaursGreatAgain

Wumodeoff

Ahaha that hashtag

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder where exactly the idea of the Indoraptor falls into place within this story. From what we've seen, the film is based on a debate as to whether these man-made sentient life forms deserve rights and protection like other natural animals. So how does the Indoraptor fall into the story? I
If the main goal for Claire is to convince everyone that these animals deserve to live because they're animals, wouldn't the Indoraptor completely go against that? I'm really curious.

Remember that thing ins the synopsis about the conspiracy? My thinking is that Lockwood just wants the animals for revenge against hammond. Wu's actually been plotting behind Lockwood's back to take over the world, etc.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder where exactly the idea of the Indoraptor falls into place within this story. From what we've seen, the film is based on a debate as to whether these man-made sentient life forms deserve rights and protection like other natural animals. So how does the Indoraptor fall into the story? I
If the main goal for Claire is to convince everyone that these animals deserve to live because they're animals, wouldn't the Indoraptor completely go against that? I'm really curious.

Remember that thing ins the synopsis about the conspiracy? My thinking is that Lockwood just wants the animals for revenge against hammond. Wu's actually been plotting behind Lockwood's back to take over the world, etc.

I'm still hoping that Wu is has been a Biosyn agent ever since the new park was being made. That and that the Indoraptor was made as an assassination weapon against Lockwood and whoever else works with him. After all, if I. rex was secretly made as a biological weapon for the military, then I don't see the scenario I mentioned above being too far-fetched.

I don't think they will ever bring in Biosyn. Apparently it is a real company name and it would be tricky to have it in the film since its basically going to make that company lool evil haha

Herrerasaurus wrote:

I don't think they will ever bring in Biosyn. Apparently it is a real company name and it would be tricky to have it in the film since its basically going to make that company lool evil haha

They could change the name, I suppose. I don't think they ever established who Dodgson worked for in the movie like they did in the book.

Or they could play it like this.

Dr. Wu: I've been a agent for InGen's top rival since Jurassic World's construction!

That way they don't have to rename it or say Biosyn out loud but of course us fans would know what he's talking about.

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Herrerasaurus wrote:

I don't think they will ever bring in Biosyn. Apparently it is a real company name and it would be tricky to have it in the film since its basically going to make that company lool evil haha

They could change the name, I suppose. I don't think they ever established who Dodgson worked for in the movie like they did in the book.

At this point, i am assuming that he worked for Lockwood.

Herrerasaurus wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Herrerasaurus wrote:

I don't think they will ever bring in Biosyn. Apparently it is a real company name and it would be tricky to have it in the film since its basically going to make that company lool evil haha

They could change the name, I suppose. I don't think they ever established who Dodgson worked for in the movie like they did in the book.

At this point, i am assuming that he worked for Lockwood.

Holy crap, that'd be a cool twist! That'd help bring the franchise full circle

Herrerasaurus wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Herrerasaurus wrote:

I don't think they will ever bring in Biosyn. Apparently it is a real company name and it would be tricky to have it in the film since its basically going to make that company lool evil haha

They could change the name, I suppose. I don't think they ever established who Dodgson worked for in the movie like they did in the book.

At this point, i am assuming that he worked for Lockwood.

Yeah, could be