Head Canons

Mistral wrote:

Oviraptor wrote:

Mistral wrote:

I've started wondering. Is there actually dialogue line or visual reference anywhere in JW that specifically says that the T-Rex and some of the other animals are the same ones from JP? Or is that all just Trevorrow and gang saying that in interviews and marketing, you know to enforce the nostalgia/fanservice/reference spectrum? Because if that's the case (?), it's not really official in-film canon isn't it? Not to me anyway.

It'd be the same as if Spielberg was saying something like, IDK, "I'd like to think Matt Hooper had a thing with Chief Brody's wife just like in the book, it's just not filmed".

The scars from the raptor attack in JP on the Rex.

Lol I can't even recognize any marks in that CGI mish mash, but I'm sure you're right. Is that indisputable though, that they're raptor claw marks, or scars that might happen to all big carnivores in their life time.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

And Trevorrow himself confirmed it

I meant inside the film, not outside it.

But the director stating it outwardly and explicitly that it's the original Rex is way different than just some viral marketing.

Colin wrote:

I mean, we took the original design and obviously, technology has changed. So, it’s going to move a little bit differently, but it’ll move differently because it’s older. And we’re giving her some scars and we’re tightening her skin. So, she has that feeling of, like, an older Burt Lancaster. And this movie is her Unforgiven

And the scars are in the same places. I wish they had said it during the film though. I hated the way they presented the Rex attraction.

Hey guys! My new headcanon is that the Spino skeleton on mainstreet isn't the one from JP3. 

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys! My new headcanon is that the Spino skeleton on mainstreet isn't the one from JP3. 

Well, there's really no real reason for it to be the same Spinosaurus, so I'm right there with you on that.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys! My new headcanon is that the Spino skeleton on mainstreet isn't the one from JP3. 

Well, there's really no real reason for it to be the same Spinosaurus, so I'm right there with you on that.

I was joking because of the new Twitter video. Did you see it?

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys! My new headcanon is that the Spino skeleton on mainstreet isn't the one from JP3. 

Well, there's really no real reason for it to be the same Spinosaurus, so I'm right there with you on that.

I was joking because of the new Twitter video. Did you see it?

No, I'm aware of it.

Still, there's no reason for that to be the case, so I'm knocking it out of my headcanon because the skeleton being the same Spino from JP3 is fucking stupid.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys! My new headcanon is that the Spino skeleton on mainstreet isn't the one from JP3. 

Well, there's really no real reason for it to be the same Spinosaurus, so I'm right there with you on that.

I was joking because of the new Twitter video. Did you see it?

No, I'm aware of it.

Still, there's no reason for that to be the case, so I'm knocking it out of my headcanon because the skeleton being the same Spino from JP3 is fucking stupid.

Oh okay. I was just making sure you were aware of it.

Because my original post was simply mocking that ridiculous video 

Between that and F&F8 making as much as it did so far, I'm really tempted to get myself drunk sometime this week. I really wish I was kidding, but I'm not.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Between that and F&F8 making as much as it did so far, I'm really tempted to get myself drunk sometime this week. I  really wish I was kidding, but I'm not.

Don't worry. We'll beat them back at the box office with "the last Jedi"!

I wish they said in JW that the Rex was the original, would have been perfect if an announcer said it just before the feeding scene. I think most people don't know it's the original Rex, only us fans & that annoys me!

Dead2009 wrote:

So because you couldnt tell if it was the same Rex as the first one "because of the CGI", even though the dinosaur looks malnourished as hell, it's not the same? Alright then.

Malnourished as hell? What has that to do with anything in the context we're talking about?

Also, what's the point in showing me a picture that happened after the I-Rex attack, after it surely would have had scars from that?

That's another thing by the way. So are we supposed to believe it has raptor scars from 22 years ago, but a day after almost dying to I-Rex in messy battle, it basically looks and moves fine? What a load of crap.

Malnourished means the dinosaur has dropped weight because it isnt eating properly....if you're on an island with the lack of a proper food distribution, you're not gonna look the same. Also, scars from an animal dont exactly "go away".

Dead2009 wrote:

Malnourished means the dinosaur has dropped weight because it isnt eating properly....if you're on an island with the lack of a proper food distribution, you're not gonna look the same. Also, scars from an animal dont exactly "go away".

Why would the Rex still look malnourished years and years after being in proper park setting? The park's been operational for 10 years or whatever right? And it's even shown to be eating the goats for entertainment?

Also, yes the scars don't all go away, but
A) can't those claw marks be classified as I-Rex claw marks
B) if not, where are the freaking I-Rex battle scars? Why does it supposedly have claw marks from 22 years ago, but not from the previous day where it almost died horribly to much bigger carnivore?

This is cartoon logic. I even buy the Spino vs T-Rex scene million times more.

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys! My new headcanon is that the Spino skeleton on mainstreet isn't the one from JP3. 

That'd be arguably the most stupid thing that ever happened in-universe, so I refuse to believe it as well.

You'd think it to be fake replica skeleton anyway given it would erode in rain, humidity and other outdoor elements. Plus there's no need for them to have authentic museum quality piece in front of Disney World crowds eating burgers and drinking beer.

Mistral wrote:

Dead2009 wrote:

Malnourished means the dinosaur has dropped weight because it isnt eating properly....if you're on an island with the lack of a proper food distribution, you're not gonna look the same. Also, scars from an animal dont exactly "go away".

Why would the Rex still look malnourished years and years after being in proper park setting? The park's been operational for 10 years or whatever right? And it's even shown to be eating the goats for entertainment?

Also, yes the scars don't all go away, but
A) can't those claw marks be classified as I-Rex claw marks
B) if not, where are the freaking I-Rex battle scars? Why does it supposedly have claw marks from 22 years ago, but not from the previous day where it almost died horribly to much bigger carnivore?

The recent battle scars are the one with her blood on them. I can see them clear as day.

Can someone point a screenshot of the said scars before the I-Rex attack?

they're around her neck and shoulder

Spoiler:

and for some contrast, here's a clearer shot of both her old scars from her fight with the Big One and the new 
wounds she got from Indominus. notice that the ones on the left are still red and bloody while the ones on the 
right are just discolored. that's what scars look like, and i'm sure many of us can confirm that from some that 
we, personally, have (i've got one on my right forearm, not as visible against my own skin but it's still there)

Spoiler:

you'll also notice that those silly rex costumes that are everywhere now also have those scars on them, so it's not like this was an easily-missed minor detail

Spoiler:

and in any case "malnourished" is the wrong term to use here, anyway. the reason Rexy looks that way isn't 
because she isn't eating properly, it's because she's old. iirc it's now thought that wild prehistoric tyrannosaurs 
would've lived about twenty years or so, maybe a couple dozen, so Rexy is undeniably approaching the end of 
her life when you also consider that, as an animal in captivity in one of the most advanced zoos in the world, 
she'd live alot longer thanks to lacking the stress of having to actually hunt for her food, having no 
competition for said food, and having access to medicine that would help her (even if against her will since 
she can't say "Hey, I think I've got dino-flu, can you help me?") just like any other zoo animal

Yes that is some evidence, but as I said before, I am looking into it from purely inside film points of view. Everything else it outside. That not only includes what Trevorrow and others say, but also promo shots and other marketing department products. What I am getting at, is that you only have the film, all 2+ hours of it, as actual evidence.

If someone watched JW without having any clue whatsoever of what has been said or produced outside of it, is there information enough in the film to say they are the same animals as in the first film? Would one even consider such proposition without knowing it beforehand? Especially, say in 20 years time from now? Are the scars + "looking different because of age" arguments enough? Or are they just sort of there, but not really?

I would argue, that since there's no actual visual evidence (all the scars are shown after the I-Rex attack, bloody or not) and no actual dialogue in the film shedding light into the matter, you cannot for 100% say that they are the same animals. Again from purely film's point of view. You only have circumstantial evidence, nothing concrete.

Look at the example of first film, and raptors more specifically. There's a "big one" that's referenced by Muldoon. Now, whether or not once can actually spot the big raptor in the film doesn't matter, we must believe it because the movie directly told us. The other approach without dialogue would have been to make one of them visibly larger than the other ones. However, what if the "big one" was not referenced at all inside the film? What if Spieberg or some producer or whoever only said: "There's one big raptor among the raptor gang". Would you believe there was? Maybe the marketing department would add to that by insisting there was one, perhaps even making toys where one was substantially larger. But it would still not change the fact that it wouldn't have been in the movie!

This is why I think this matter of animal canon qualifies not only as head canon, but actual general canon theory as well.

Here's more proof.

As you can see the fresh scars are the bleeding ones and the healed ones are the old ones.





And here's even more proof.



You have the look hard enough, but just behind the jaw, you can see the scars as well.






Besides, did you ever think that the director thought that fans would put 2 and together and come up with who it was with him telling them?

The director says it's the same. It looks the same(but older) and has the same scars in the same exact places. I don't understand how this is a debate. 

There is nothing to suggest it's not the original. Why would they put some scars on a T-Rex on the same place as the original if it wasn't meant to be the original?

Troyal1 wrote:

The director says it's the same. It looks the same(but older) and has the same scars in the same exact places. I don't understand how this is a debate. 

There is nothing to suggest it's not the original. Why would they put some scars on a T-Rex on the same place as the original if it wasn't meant to be the original?

You know what the sad thing is? Because of how Universal tried to pretend that the JW Spino skeleton is that of the JP3 Spino, which is clearly not, whatever else Universal says is canon or not will be up for debate, no matter how much common sense dictates and how much the director says. Universal didn't think about that when they did what the did.

And people wonder why I want another movie studio to get the rights...

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

The director says it's the same. It looks the same(but older) and has the same scars in the same exact places. I don't understand how this is a debate. 

There is nothing to suggest it's not the original. Why would they put some scars on a T-Rex on the same place as the original if it wasn't meant to be the original?

You know what the sad thing is? Because of how Universal tried to pretend that the JW Spino skeleton is that of the JP3 Spino, which is clearly not, whatever else Universal says is canon or not will be up for debate, no matter how much common sense dictates and how much the director says. Universal didn't think about that when they did what the did.  

And people wonder why I want another movie studio to get the rights...

I really hope they won't make any more blunders like that..... I mean I still think it's probably just a blunder. Like do you think if they asked Colin if it was the same EXACT Spino he would say yes? If so I'm pretty worried.

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

The director says it's the same. It looks the same(but older) and has the same scars in the same exact places. I don't understand how this is a debate. 

There is nothing to suggest it's not the original. Why would they put some scars on a T-Rex on the same place as the original if it wasn't meant to be the original?

You know what the sad thing is? Because of how Universal tried to pretend that the JW Spino skeleton is that of the JP3 Spino, which is clearly not, whatever else Universal says is canon or not will be up for debate, no matter how much common sense dictates and how much the director says. Universal didn't think about that when they did what the did.  

And people wonder why I want another movie studio to get the rights...

I really hope they won't make any more blunders like that..... I mean I still think it's probably just a blunder. Like do you think if they asked Colin if it was the same EXACT Spino he would say yes? If so I'm pretty worried.

I think he would, but in fairness, he'd most likely be taking orders from either one of the higher ups at Universal or from Spielberg himself. One has to keep in mind that he's still a very recent director. He can't go rogue. Josh Trank did that and look what happened to him. If he really were to do so of his own free will, then it would be very naive on his part. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that it's corporate ineptitude.

I see that Jurassic Collectables (the famous collector on youtube) also sees the new film(s) as non-canon in his head
https://twitter.com/JurassicCollect/status/856450463369220097

*sigh* it's true. Well, a consolation is I don't see the new trilogy as canon so it balances out haha.

You're right, just JW gets the non-existant treatment at the mo. I'm hoping it's a good chapter. Wonder if the sub is in the Mosasaur tank

Yep same. I thought TLW was a brave and yet consistent move. JP is dark plot. We've lost that 100% with JP the musical (JW)

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Here's more proof.

You mind putting a spoiler on that second one? It's stretching the page.

i decided to go and put the pics i posted in spoilers, too

Mistral wrote:

I see that Jurassic Collectables (the famous collector on youtube) also sees the new film(s) as non-canon in his head
https://twitter.com/JurassicCollect/status/856450463369220097

*sigh* it's true. Well, a consolation is I don't see the new trilogy as canon so it balances out haha.

You're right, just JW gets the non-existant treatment at the mo. I'm hoping it's a good chapter. Wonder if the sub is in the Mosasaur tank

Yep same. I thought TLW was a brave and yet consistent move. JP is dark plot. We've lost that 100% with JP the musical (JW)

You know, when the first Hobbit film came out, it was accused of being a "Disneyfied" version of LOTR on account of containing more songs (that were actually in the book). And to be fair, I kinda understood where that line of thinking was coming from even if I disagreed. BUT under no circumstances does the phrase "JP the musical" connect with Jurassic World under any circumstances. Sure, I get the implication that he thinks they Disneyfied/dumbed it down it, but there were NO SONGS IN THE FILM! How do you call something a musical if it doesn't even have songs?!?!

It just boggles the mind...

And I hate to say it, but JurassicCollectables just strikes me as too much of a bitter guy for my taste. Maybe when all is said and done, none of the following films will have been to his taste and that would be a shame. But I would implore him to at least be honest in his criticisms.

Also, if Universal don't consider TLW canon, that's sure as hell not going to stop me from viewing it as canon and interconnected to the wider four-film franchise, even JP3 counts despite its shortcomings. To me, canon is what you can make of it, even if a writer or director in the films comes out and says otherwise which hasn't technically happened yet.

I think it's just a metaphor

For me, as I've said before, my primary head canon includes Jurassic Park, and that film only. None of the sequels or other stuff mentioned elsewhere happened. If you have to really explain their existence, to me they are just standalone stories unrelated to the first film. TLW and (just because nothing contradictory really happens in it) JP3 I could sort of accept I guess, but even with those I would rather not if I have choice.

I believe Henry Wu is going to take a darker turn in the future. He's gonna become like the Hammer Filsm version of Dr. Frankenstein. He's not going to let anything get in his way with his experimentations with dinosaur genetics. And if it's gonna cost a few lives.... so be it.

I also believe some time after JP3 the Spinosaurus that was in the film was killed off by the Tyrannosaurus couple from The Lost World. It ties in with the theory that the Rex that got killed in JP3 was the chick from The Lost World.

- Rexy was captured in 2002 by the Ingen security team using a goat as a lure so she could be tranquilized.
-There were initially no plans to display velociraptors at Jurassic world, until Hoskins convinced Masrani they could be trained. Wild raptors were initially tried, but they proved to be unworkable and were thus euthanized.
- several workers were killed by dilophosaur's during the construction of Jurassic world.
- T.rex, triceratops, apatosaurus, stegosaurus, parasaurolophus, ankylosaurus, pteranodon, metricanthosaurus, and Baryonyx were among the first "wave" of prehistoric creatures displayed at Jurassic world in its 2005 opening, with more being added on later.