JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM

[stargatedalek]

My reaction to the movie: damn, that Concavenator was cool! Favorite part.

Yeah, it looked awesome.  I'm wondering what Ceratopsian skull that was, looks too big for anynormal Ceratopsian.

It was a skull of a made up ceratopsian with horns that are large enough to impale a medium-sized predator and point straight upwards... for some reason.

I could say the same thing about Styracosaurus. Ceratopsian skulls don't "make sense" as weapons and never have.

[DinoToyForum]

My reaction to the movie: damn, that Concavenator was cool! Favorite part.

Yeah, it looked awesome.  I'm wondering what Ceratopsian skull that was, looks too big for anynormal Ceratopsian.

It was a skull of a made up ceratopsian with horns that are large enough to impale a medium-sized predator and point straight upwards... for some reason.

I could say the same thing about Styracosaurus. Ceratopsian skulls don't "make sense" as weapons and never have.

I simply meant that it was designed that way as a plot device.

[stargatedalek]

My reaction to the movie: damn, that Concavenator was cool! Favorite part.

Yeah, it looked awesome.  I'm wondering what Ceratopsian skull that was, looks too big for anynormal Ceratopsian.

It was a skull of a made up ceratopsian with horns that are large enough to impale a medium-sized predator and point straight upwards... for some reason.

I could say the same thing about Styracosaurus. Ceratopsian skulls don't "make sense" as weapons and never have.

I simply meant that it was designed that way as a plot device.

And I simply meant that it wasn't particularly unusual despite that, they could have used a number of real ceratopsian skulls and they would appear equally contrived.

[MLMjp]

My reaction to the movie: damn, that Concavenator was cool! Favorite part.

Yeah, it looked awesome.  I'm wondering what Ceratopsian skull that was, looks too big for anynormal Ceratopsian.

It was a skull of a made up ceratopsian with horns that are large enough to impale a medium-sized predator and point straight upwards... for some reason.

I could say the same thing about Styracosaurus. Ceratopsian skulls don't "make sense" as weapons and never have.

I simply meant that it was designed that way as a plot device.

And I simply meant that it wasn't particularly unusual despite that, they could have used a number of real ceratopsian skulls and they would appear equally contrived.

I believe it had a label saying "Triceratops". I might be wrong though. I may have to watch certain parts of the movie again to clarify it. It´s probably the skull of a clone that turned out a little bit different from the usual Triceratops.

[DinoToyForum]

My reaction to the movie: damn, that Concavenator was cool! Favorite part.

Yeah, it looked awesome.  I'm wondering what Ceratopsian skull that was, looks too big for anynormal Ceratopsian.

It was a skull of a made up ceratopsian with horns that are large enough to impale a medium-sized predator and point straight upwards... for some reason.

I could say the same thing about Styracosaurus. Ceratopsian skulls don't "make sense" as weapons and never have.

I simply meant that it was designed that way as a plot device.

And I simply meant that it wasn't particularly unusual despite that, they could have used a number of real ceratopsian skulls and they would appear equally contrived.

Sure, I agree it isn't particularly unusual. I didn't say it was. I bet they considered real ceratopsian skulls before concluding that none of them were quite fit for purpose. So they tweaked a generic ceratopsian skull just enough for it to fulfil the function it needed to serve in the movie. I'm fine with that. I was just pointing it out because D @Digibasherx wondered what skull it was and I think this observation explains why it looks the way it does.

[Digibasherx]

My reaction to the movie: damn, that Concavenator was cool! Favorite part.

Yeah, it looked awesome.  I'm wondering what Ceratopsian skull that was, looks too big for anynormal Ceratopsian.

It was a skull of a made up ceratopsian with horns that are large enough to impale a medium-sized predator and point straight upwards... for some reason.

I could say the same thing about Styracosaurus. Ceratopsian skulls don't "make sense" as weapons and never have.

I simply meant that it was designed that way as a plot device.

And I simply meant that it wasn't particularly unusual despite that, they could have used a number of real ceratopsian skulls and they would appear equally contrived.

Sure, I agree it isn't particularly unusual. I didn't say it was. I bet they considered real ceratopsian skulls before concluding that none of them were quite fit for purpose. So they tweaked a generic ceratopsian skull just enough for it to fulfil the function it needed to serve in the movie. I'm fine with that. I was just pointing it out because D @Digibasherx wondered what skull it was and I think this observation explains why it looks the way it does.

I know right, here I'm wondering about species when we have a movie with Raptor Rex hybrids. 

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

The Honest Trailer is great as is the How It Should Have Ended.

[suspsy]

I finally watched this movie. It was even worse than I imagined. Putting aside the scientific accuracy issue, I found it was flat-out BORING. Completely, utterly, painfully predictable from beginning to end.

And really, given that Starlord and Narf were directly responsible for all the death and destruction in the previous film, they both should have been rotting away in prison.

[Faelrin]

I see this has not been shared here yet:
https://jurassicoutpost.com/comprehensive-visual-guide-to-every-jurassic-world-park-dinosaur/

While I was already familiar with most on this list, I find this extremely fascinating and helpful as I am trying to have a complete (as possible) film canon species collection (including variations), with Mattel's toys. I really hope that leaked 2019 Dimetrodon on JPToys is still going to have that green and red color scheme since it seems pretty close to the prototype one that was in Fallen Kingdom.

[Appalachiosaurus]

I see this has not been shared here yet:
https://jurassicoutpost.com/comprehensive-visual-guide-to-every-jurassic-world-park-dinosaur/

While I was already familiar with most on this list, I find this extremely fascinating and helpful as I am trying to have a complete (as possible) film canon species collection (including variations), with Mattel's toys. I really hope that leaked 2019 Dimetrodon on JPToys is still going to have that green and red color scheme since it seems pretty close to the prototype one that was in Fallen Kingdom.

I hate how that misinterpretation has been spread around and treated as canon. I really doubt any of the dinosaurs in the manor are real, they're just models for Lockwood's collection. Just because a blurb in a random promotion magazine called them "stuffed" doesn't mean Hammond was cloning Concovenators in the 80s.

[Faelrin]

I honestly don't see what the problem with it is though? I haven't read the EW article that made that claim, but is it really hurting anyone (and how does anyone know it's false? Has anyone asked Trevorrow or Bayona, etc on this yet)? I mean if you want to be really strict with what creatures are film canon then just focus on the ones that are alive in the films. It's not like these films have ever had any sort of extended universe like Star Wars, etc has. We have to just make do with what we have, and explain things with what is there (like all the inconsistent creature designs as different version numbers, outside of the obvious between the scenes decisions that were made). If it turns out to be just a head  canon thing like so many others, then whatever. It's not like I'm expecting any of these species to show up in the next film as it is. And honestly them just being in the film, even if statues, etc, is still something interesting, as it is still the first time some of these creatures have had a rendition that has been seen in these films. But what's more important to me is probably the toys that I collect at this point, and all it does is just give me another couple to add to my list.

Edit: So it turns out I actually do have that EW magazine where that claim came from. I haven't read the whole thing, but there's a blurb next to a piece of concept art of the inside of the manor (with the skeletons and diorama's, one of which is the Dimetrodon). The blurb only calls them stuffed dinosaurs and goes on to say that Bayona choose the species and put them in the dioramas and gave them little stories. Nothing about them being taxidermied original Jurassic Park dinosaurs. So maybe Jurassic Outpost is taking things out of context or too far. Although again I haven't read the entire magazine. At least until either Trevorrow or Bayona can or have clarified on this, if it's not in any of the behind the scenes footage out there, it's probably just better to take it with a grain of salt anyways, even if it's not hurting anyone.

Link to the article where the claim is made about what was said in the EW magazine (which has the concept art): https://jurassicoutpost.com/check-out-this-explosive-new-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-concept-art/

[stargatedalek]

I see this has not been shared here yet:
https://jurassicoutpost.com/comprehensive-visual-guide-to-every-jurassic-world-park-dinosaur/

While I was already familiar with most on this list, I find this extremely fascinating and helpful as I am trying to have a complete (as possible) film canon species collection (including variations), with Mattel's toys. I really hope that leaked 2019 Dimetrodon on JPToys is still going to have that green and red color scheme since it seems pretty close to the prototype one that was in Fallen Kingdom.

I hate how that misinterpretation has been spread around and treated as canon. I really doubt any of the dinosaurs in the manor are real, they're just models for Lockwood's collection. Just because a blurb in a random promotion magazine called them "stuffed" doesn't mean Hammond was cloning Concovenators in the 80s.

It's called "soft canon" for a reason, you don't need to get uppity over it. It means something is canon until a main series film says otherwise.

Soft canon for Jurassic Park already included; JP: The Game, Jurassic Park Operation Genesis, Jurassic World Evolution, and every toy series. The distinction of whether these are "prototype" mounts or statues is hardly the only part of JP canon that could be completely erased by any future movie.

[Appalachiosaurus]

Oh no, i'm not trying to discourage anyone from collecting the Lockwood Dinos if there ever is toys made of them or trying to bash anyone that wants to believe that Hammond made a couple baby Diplodocus, i'm just saying that what we know about the time before JP suggests that those dioramas are models, given that none of the species appear on Ingen's list and Hammond had already bought and built his facilities on Sorna when the first dinosaurs were cloned. If the Dinos really are taxidermied prototypes, then the Masrani and DPG websites will have to rewrite some of their information to support the new info about Hammond cloning dinosaurs much earlier than the current timeline says.

[Faelrin]

Oh those are some good points there. I forgot about the list in all honesty. And the stuff that was on the Masrani backdoor. It's been a while since I checked it out. But of course the stuff in the films has precedence. And doesn't the introduction of Lockwood mess with that (timeline on the backdoor site) in some way? I haven't seen the film since I saw it in theaters, so there's probably details I've already forgotten.

[stargatedalek]

Oh no, i'm not trying to discourage anyone from collecting the Lockwood Dinos if there ever is toys made of them or trying to bash anyone that wants to believe that Hammond made a couple baby Diplodocus, i'm just saying that what we know about the time before JP suggests that those dioramas are models, given that none of the species appear on Ingen's list and Hammond had already bought and built his facilities on Sorna when the first dinosaurs were cloned. If the Dinos really are taxidermied prototypes, then the Masrani and DPG websites will have to rewrite some of their information to support the new info about Hammond cloning dinosaurs much earlier than the current timeline says.

The viral marketing campaigns are also soft canon, meaning contradictions between them are meaningless.

[Appalachiosaurus]

Oh those are some good points there. I forgot about the list in all honesty. And the stuff that was on the Masrani backdoor. It's been a while since I checked it out. But of course the stuff in the films has precedence. And doesn't the introduction of Lockwood mess with that (timeline on the backdoor site) in some way? I haven't seen the film since I saw it in theaters, so there's probably details I've already forgotten.

Surprisingly not. I looked into the canon to see where Lockwood would fit, and there is an 3 year gap in the timeline from when Hammond and Wu start researching if DNA samples from amber are viable and when Sorna is leased and the first dinosaurs cloned. If we assume that no extinct animals were cloned in the Manor and the labs were only used to test the technology and pave the way towards Sorna's facilities, it fits perfectly.

Spoiler

1974
•   Benjamin Lockwood and John Hammond began their partnership.
1975
•   InGen is established in San Diego, California.
1979
•   John Hammond comes up with the idea of extracting DNA from mosquitoes
•   Hammond pitches his idea to two Stanford geneticists, Norman Atherton and Henry Wu.
•   Hammond pitches his "8-year plan" with a group of Japanese investors, Hamaguri and Denaska.
1979-1984
•   Tests of preserved DNA prove intact enough to attempt De-extinction.
1980
•   Hammond searches for leasable private islands in the pacific and the Caribbean for a base of operations, Sorna sticks out to him
1981
•   Hammond and team scout Isla Sorna to see if is a suitable building location
•   While running the Animal Kingdom with Robert Muldoon, John Hammond begins laying the groundwork for Jurassic Park.
1982
•   Isla Sorna is leased from the Costa Rican Government to InGen. InGen builds several facilities on the island to create and raise dinosaurs.
•   Hammond meets Dennis Nedry
1983
•   Construction of Jurassic Park: San Diego begins.
1984 
•   First prehistoric animal was brought back to life, using an artificial ovum.
1985
•   Jurassic Park: San Diego is canceled. Hammond instead decides to build Jurassic Park on Isla Nublar, a neighboring island to Isla Sorna. He leases the island from the Costa Rican government the same year.
1986
•   InGen successfully clones their first dinosaur on Site B

[close]

[DinoToyForum]

I see this has not been shared here yet:
https://jurassicoutpost.com/comprehensive-visual-guide-to-every-jurassic-world-park-dinosaur/

While I was already familiar with most on this list, I find this extremely fascinating and helpful as I am trying to have a complete (as possible) film canon species collection (including variations), with Mattel's toys. I really hope that leaked 2019 Dimetrodon on JPToys is still going to have that green and red color scheme since it seems pretty close to the prototype one that was in Fallen Kingdom.

I hate how that misinterpretation has been spread around and treated as canon. I really doubt any of the dinosaurs in the manor are real, they're just models for Lockwood's collection. Just because a blurb in a random promotion magazine called them "stuffed" doesn't mean Hammond was cloning Concovenators in the 80s.

It's called "soft canon" for a reason, you don't need to get uppity over it. It means something is canon until a main series film says otherwise.

Soft canon for Jurassic Park already included; JP: The Game, Jurassic Park Operation Genesis, Jurassic World Evolution, and every toy series. The distinction of whether these are "prototype" mounts or statues is hardly the only part of JP canon that could be completely erased by any future movie.

Genuine question, is that what soft canon means? The only definition I could find for the term is "Secondary material, such as official novels based on a television series, that may or may not be regarded as canon." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soft_canon)

"may or may not be regarded as canon" is quite different from "is canon until a main series film says otherwise."

I hadn't heard of this concept before so I'm interested to learn.

[stargatedalek]

Genuine question, is that what soft canon means? The only definition I could find for the term is "Secondary material, such as official novels based on a television series, that may or may not be regarded as canon." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soft_canon)

"may or may not be regarded as canon" is quite different from "is canon until a main series film says otherwise."

I hadn't heard of this concept before so I'm interested to learn.

It's semantics at that point. Soft canon is any content that is not explicitly canon but could still be referenced as "expanded universe" material.

[DinoToyForum]

Genuine question, is that what soft canon means? The only definition I could find for the term is "Secondary material, such as official novels based on a television series, that may or may not be regarded as canon." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soft_canon)

"may or may not be regarded as canon" is quite different from "is canon until a main series film says otherwise."

I hadn't heard of this concept before so I'm interested to learn.

It's semantics at that point. Soft canon is any content that is not explicitly canon but could still be referenced as "expanded universe" material.

OK, thanks. To be fair, the difference between "not explicitly canon" and "is canon until..." is not semantic. But it is me being pedantic. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, I get it now. 

[Faelrin]

@Appalachiosaurus Oh that's fascinating. And thanks for posting those as well. Was nice jogging my memory on that stuff.