Jurassic World

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Metalwolf

So pretty much canon-wise, the 2nd and 3rd movie never happened?

I think the 2nd and 3rd happened, you have to take into account that many years has passed, And the 2nd and 3rd film took place on a different island.

[FlawedCoil82]

I just really hope that Triceratops will finally get some respect this time. The first time he was sick, the second time he had all of 5 seconds of screen time and third time he was only mentioned.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by Metalwolf

So pretty much canon-wise, the 2nd and 3rd movie never happened?

I don't think they need to discount 2 and 3 for that plot to make sense. It could easily be just another case of industrial hubris, where some company, or billionaire builds another dinosaur park, despite it being a bad idea.

[pennydreadful]

I'm hopeful that it won't be a stinker, even though I thought both the sequels totally failed to capture what made the original so great. I'm pretty basic - I couldn't care less who's in it, I just want the raptors to show up and scare the crap out of me like they did in the original. To me, they're by far the coolest dinosaur.

I haven't really been following the news on it too much - it looks like they're sticking with the more mottled greenish color skin tones for the raptors? I kind of preferred the more grey/brown look that they had in the original film, but I'll wait and see what they pull out of their hat.

[TigerClaw]

And I liked the 2nd and 3rd one, I liked the 2nd one the Most cause of that San Diego scene at the end, It was a fun scene.

[sdp]

Originally Posted by Metalwolf

So pretty much canon-wise, the 2nd and 3rd movie never happened?

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I think the 2nd and 3rd happened, you have to take into account that many years has passed, And the 2nd and 3rd film took place on a different island.

Originally Posted by ProactiveMan

I don't think they need to discount 2 and 3 for that plot to make sense. It could easily be just another case of industrial hubris, where some company, or billionaire builds another dinosaur park, despite it being a bad idea.

As disappointing as the sequels are they aren't terrible so I also don't want them to be ignored. The director has avoided the question and the only official statement that we have is that this is a "sequel set 22 years after the original movie". So it is pretty ambiguous whether the sequels are in continuity or not. But the premise of the movie basically makes it near impossible for the sequels to take place since the premise is that people are getting tired of the park. If we take the sequels into account that leaves less than ten years that the park has been opened and the basic plot doesn't make sense but if the sequels didn't happen then it makes the plot plausible. Also a single line of "the park has been operating for X years" in the movie would decanonize the sequels immediately.

I personally think for this reason they're leaving it ambiguous not to dissimilar than TMNT (2007) and other "soft" reboots. depending on how the movie does they can always explolre Isla Sorna for the "first" time in this new continuity or canonize them..They just don't want to be restricted storywise by the sequels which they didn't really do much storywise anyway and just convoluted things a bit.

Originally Posted by turtlefanforever

this movie has dumpster fire written all over it. and even if it didn't make sense for either of them to be there they could still be through way of supporting characters. Kelly Malcom (Dr. Malcoms daughter) Could be working there. Same with Billy Brennan and Eric Kirby.

This movie is trash because returning characters that make no sense in returning aren't coming back? ok.

Originally Posted by Sumac

That's how it always goes. All this words of assurance are only to pacify public. Even if movie obviously shapes to be a disaster, they still will try to convince everyone, that everything is fine.
I am not saying it's the case with JW, but I don't think words of director is 100% guarantee, that it will be a good picture.

Of course not and I mention that in my post, but its way more likely that it won't be bad because of the Director being so involved with the franchise and understanding it.

[Davetello]

They've discovered that the velociraptor was far smaller than they thought in 1992, and was also covered in feathers. They might have to change the name of the 'raptor' in the new film, because there was a dinosaur similar to how it was depicted in the original film, but I can't remember its proper name.

[Machias Banshee]

Human Dinosaur hybrids, huh? This is the first I heard of it.

.... or is it?

I remember around the time the first movie came out, they had discovered Utahraptor, which was closer to the dimensions of the movie raptors' designs.

Though I must admit, the raptors from the third movie were pretty amazing...

I can't wait to see this. I only recently heard that they were actually in the productive process of actual dinosaurs and sets, so I've been looking around for stuff like crazy. But youtube is full of either fan predictions or fake trailers.

[sdp]

Yeah the Utahraptor was discovered before the first JP movie came out so it doesn't even make sense they'd change the name now. As far as feathers its controversial and I'm not happy but they decided to go with no feathers. The new trailer comes out in November so its not a long wait anymore, it'll only be a teaser so don't expect much. And yeah the human hybrid stuff was something that was in pre-production for a while but never got anywhere as did dozens of other pitches in the ten years of development hell between JP/// and JW actually began production.

[Darth Knuckles]

Originally Posted by Davetello

They've discovered that the velociraptor was far smaller than they thought in 1992, and was also covered in feathers. They might have to change the name of the 'raptor' in the new film, because there was a dinosaur similar to how it was depicted in the original film, but I can't remember its proper name.

Yeah I think you're thinking of a Deinonychus or maybe even a Dromaeosaurus as what the Velociraptors in the original Jurassic Park looked like. They are a taller form of the Velociraptor and have a broader thicker head than do Velociraptors. I just thought that they went with Velociraptor for Jurassic Park because they figured more people could pronounce Velociraptor than how to say Deinonychus.

[Davetello]

Originally Posted by Darth Knuckles

Yeah I think you're thinking of a Deinonychus or maybe even a Dromaeosaurus as what the Velociraptors in the original Jurassic Park looked like. They are a taller form of the Velociraptor and have a broader thicker head than do Velociraptors. I just thought that they went with Velociraptor for Jurassic Park because they figured more people could pronounce Velociraptor than how to say Deinonychus.

Deinonychus. That's the name - thanks pal.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Metalwolf

So pretty much canon-wise, the 2nd and 3rd movie never happened?

Why?
Both movies are pretty much things of their own. There is no reason to drop them from timeline.

[Darth Knuckles]

Originally Posted by Davetello

Deinonychus. That's the name - thanks pal.

No problemo dude!

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

And I liked the 2nd and 3rd one, I liked the 2nd one the Most cause of that San Diego scene at the end, It was a fun scene.

i myself also loved all of the Jurassic Park movies as well

[sdp]

www.masraniglobal.com/main.html

Viral site for Jurassic World from the company that owns JW and JurassicWorld.com is also live as a "real" website for the park. (jurassicworldmovie.com is the website for the movie). The sites basically reveal the timeline and fit not only the sequels nicely but also incorporate the Telltale game with some references to it. The park has been operating for 10 years (at the time the movie comes out) without problems and they hint that they have something special planned for the 10th anniversary. Dr. Henry Wu will be back from the first movie.

Trailer comes out in Thankgiving.

[TheCanadiandrome]

that's awesome

[Leo656]

I only finally saw all three just recently and while the second and third weren't "bad" (just badly-written and thought-out), there are huge flaws with the JP story being turned into a franchise. Basically, based on the events of the first movie (and the ending of the second), you can't continue the story. Firstly, the entire idea behind breeding dinosaurs for a theme park has been proven beyond disastrous, so nobody should ever be in a hurry to replicate the "success" of the original scientists. And secondly, didn't the second one feature a dinosaur trashing large parts of San Francisco? HOW would anyone ever get the funding and the "A-OK" from the government - ANY government! - to not only continue producing dinosaurs, but to actually open up a fully-functional theme park FULL of them, as in this new movie? There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's "Everyone Is An Idiot". And the story of Jurassic Park ONLY continues past One movie if Everyone Is An Idiot. Everyone in the WORLD has to be a giant idiot if there's a fully-functioning theme park full of dinosaurs and nobody in the movie's universe thinks it can go wrong, to the point they actually build the park and it runs successfully for TEN YEARS. That's just bad storytelling. And it comes from the problem of Making Money; the first movie was a parable about Not Playing God, and it did it effectively; the second and third movies were about, "Dinosaurs Are Neat, And Also, Look What We Can Do With SFX You Guys!"

Since my wife is a huge fan we'll inevitably see it, but I didn't really like the last two and I just don't see how you can continue the story WITHOUT having to ignore anything based in reason or logic entirely. But I'm sure it will look great, which seems to be as high as they're aiming anyways.

[pennydreadful]

The second one would've been fine if they'd just followed the book more closely, IMO. In the book, Dodgson from the first movie came back and was the main villain. Spielberg clipped most of the major action scenes from the novel but changed large portions of the rest of the content. That entire San Francisco tangent was pure Spielberg. As was the whole father/daughter thing with Malcolm and Kelly. And the infamous death-by-acrobatics scene.

The novel had a very interesting sub-plot where it explored the ramifications of the dinosaurs (in particular, the raptors) not having had adults to learn normal social behaviors from, comparing their intra-aggressive behavior to the learned (and cooperative) behavior of pack-hunting African super-predators.

[sdp]

My opinions of the sequels:

TLW:JP - Ambitious movie that doesn't deliver, it has a great premise but it can't live up to it so it fails. The movie has some great moments which are ruined by small things like the acrobatics raptor scene and the T-Rex in San Diego. Still I like the movie it just fails to capitalize on all the great stuff it has.

JP/// - Not ambitious at all, its a basic premise but unlike TLW it delivers what it set out to do so while not moving the story forward a lot it at least does the things it tries right. I don't particularly like the ending/last 5 minutes of the film though.

Both sequels have flaws but I can overlook them, of course they don't live up to the original but its hard because the original tells a story and completes it, the sequels can only do so much but I still enjoy more stories from that universe even if none will ever be as good as the one that sets the whole thing up. So yeah I like the sequels but to a regular fan I'd only recommend the first one as a must see movie and only the sequels if they want to see more dinosaurs. I think Jurassic World will actually be a better movie than TLW and /// but it also won't be as good as the original it just can't be topped (unless we had a reboot based only on the book) we'll see next year.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I only finally saw all three just recently and while the second and third weren't "bad" (just badly-written and thought-out), there are huge flaws with the JP story being turned into a franchise. Basically, based on the events of the first movie (and the ending of the second), you can't continue the story.

I disagree, you have an island full of dinosaurs there's plenty of stories you can tell. Sure none of those stories can outdo the original story which sets the premise of dinosaurs on the island but you can still have fun Dinosaur stories.

Firstly, the entire idea behind breeding dinosaurs for a theme park has been proven beyond disastrous, so nobody should ever be in a hurry to replicate the "success" of the original scientists. And secondly, didn't the second one feature a dinosaur trashing large parts of San Francisco? HOW would anyone ever get the funding and the "A-OK" from the government - ANY government! - to not only continue producing dinosaurs, but to actually open up a fully-functional theme park FULL of them, as in this new movie? There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's "Everyone Is An Idiot". And the story of Jurassic Park ONLY continues past One movie if Everyone Is An Idiot. Everyone in the WORLD has to be a giant idiot if there's a fully-functioning theme park full of dinosaurs and nobody in the movie's universe thinks it can go wrong, to the point they actually build the park and it runs successfully for TEN YEARS. That's just bad storytelling. And it comes from the problem of Making Money; the first movie was a parable about Not Playing God, and it did it effectively; the second and third movies were about, "Dinosaurs Are Neat, And Also, Look What We Can Do With SFX You Guys!"

I disagree, you're talking about some of the most impressive animals to ever live on this earth being brought back from extinction, do you think that any disaster would stop companies trying to profit from continuing the project? Or the average person would no longer want these creatures to be seen? Of course they want to see them they'd just take more precautions. I can only agree that the sequels don't tell anything new move the story forward or send a better message but there's still fun stories to tell on an island full of dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

The second one would've been fine if they'd just followed the book more closely, IMO. In the book, Dodgson from the first movie came back and was the main villain. Spielberg clipped most of the major action scenes from the novel but changed large portions of the rest of the content. That entire San Francisco tangent was pure Spielberg. As was the whole father/daughter thing with Malcolm and Kelly. And the infamous death-by-acrobatics scene.

The novel had a very interesting sub-plot where it explored the ramifications of the dinosaurs (in particular, the raptors) not having had adults to learn normal social behaviors from, comparing their intra-aggressive behavior to the learned (and cooperative) behavior of pack-hunting African super-predators.

I have mixed opinions about this, on one hand you are right all the bad things about TLW are the things Spielberg changed from the book. However I don't know if I can say it was the wrong move, if you think about it Spielberg also changed many things about the original book in the first film, only difference is the changes he made in the first movie were indeed better. Hammond's character and the ending and even the gate are so iconic and we have Spielberg to thank for the iconic look and characterization which he changed from the book. So while Spielberg changes gave us a shittier TLW, it also gave us a more awe-inducing moments in the first film. So Spielberg doing changing things can be good or bad and I'm ok with him doing it even if he ruins some movies if it can give us awesome depictions in others.

[Sumac]

The movie has some great moments which are ruined by small things like the acrobatics raptor scene and the T-Rex in San Diego.

It was the best scene in the otherwise boring movie.