JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM

[DerbesSchuhwerk]

Hasn't a Allosaurus skull a more narrow snout? I have the feeling, that the JW snout is to wide and to round.
Maybe its the frog DNA again.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[DinoToyForum]

My thoughts on the identity of the dinosaurs...

I took the creatures in Jurassic Park as the best efforts the scientists were capable of with the resources available to them. Frog DNA was used to fill in the gaps, but only because there were gaps. The dinosaur DNA was otherwise representative of a particular dinosaur species, and therefore they could justify attaching an actual dinosaur genus name to each animal. Any errors were essentially accidental. Sure, there was some wriggle room (as discussed in the book), but in principle, as the technology improved, and as the gaps got filled in, the dinosaurs could become purer. As a dinosaur lover, I loved that premise.

JW shat on all that. It made it clear (in the movie world and real world) that the animals are dinosaurs in name only. In the case of 'real' dinosaur genera, the errors are cynically intentional (not accidental), and in the case of hybrids, they are going out of their way to do the opposite of what Jurassic Park attempted to do. In this sense, JW is the antithesis to JP. As a dinosaur lover, I despise that premise. As a Jurassic Park lover, I despise that premise.

It has become irrelevant what names are attached to the creatures, because they are no longer dinosaurs in any meaningful sense. So, it is pointless trying to identify the animals in the JW2 trailer.

That's my gut reaction to what I'm seeing. I think this is why as a dinosaur lover I'm disappointed and checking out (forget all the other problems with JW as a movie). I don't know how other Jurassic Park fans, especially those who are also dinosaur fans, can stomach it, but to each their own. All I know is it isn't for me.

Dr. Wu states "You are acting like we are engaged in some kind of mad science. But we are doing what we have done from the beginning. Nothing in Jurassic World is natural. We have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And, if their genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality. You asked for more teeth."

This quote pretty sums up everything. All JP creatures are genetically altered, that's why they're not actual dinosaurs. I know it doesn't make sense for real science, but it's sci-fi what we're talking about. People should start to take this literally and uncritically, like we do with everything in other sci-fi franchises, and enjoy the damn thing for what it is. There are still plenty of aspects to pick on in a movie, like a lame plot or bad acting, and stuff like that.

Speak for yourself!

[Jose S.M.]

re: mystery ceratopsid

wait... the frill holes are actual holes (ie doesn't seem to be covered by flesh)?

I was going to say that it was nice that the ceratopsian has coloful eye spots on it's frill but it doesn look like al least the green part is actually a hole and the green I see is the foliage, that sucks. I don't think that it's too difficult to fix some stuff like that is the six months or so that they have until release, but I don't think they take this kind of feedback in count.

[Simon]

Could the mystery ceratopsid be sinoceratops? With the single horn and distinctive curved frill spikes/knobs/whatever the heck you call them.

Where are people seeing any mystery ceratopsian?The only ceratopsians that I see in the trailer are all Triceratops.

THAR BE AGATHAUMASES IN THAM THAR HILLS... ARRR!!!! 

[stargatedalek]

Dr. Wu states "You are acting like we are engaged in some kind of mad science. But we are doing what we have done from the beginning. Nothing in Jurassic World is natural. We have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And, if their genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality. You asked for more teeth."

This quote pretty sums up everything. All JP creatures are genetically altered, that's why they're not actual dinosaurs. I know it doesn't make sense for real science, but it's sci-fi what we're talking about. People should start to take this literally and uncritically, like we do with everything in other sci-fi franchises, and enjoy the damn thing for what it is. There are still plenty of aspects to pick on in a movie, like a lame plot or bad acting, and stuff like that.

This is the worst excuse I have ever heard, quite potentially for anything. People take lore and continuity in science fiction pretty damn seriously. And this "we screwed the dinosaurs up on purpose so everyone get off our backs" "subplot" (one line isn't a damned subplot) doesn't explain the terrible redesigns that came out of left field for JW. If suddenly in a Star Wars movie Chewbacca was replaced with a dog people would be up in arms, so why are we suddenly over-analyzing or unjustified in some way not to want every herbivore design replaced with a grey pile of jello, and the Pteranodons replaced with anorexic gargoyles?

[Patrx]

Well said, Adam!

All JP creatures are genetically altered, that's why they're not actual dinosaurs.

Unlike the first three films, which simply used genetic engineering as a vehicle to get Mesozoic animals into the present, JW is leaning into the sci-fi monster thing to the extent that there's basically nothing left in the franchise for dinosaur fans.

[Libraraptor]

Honestly I do not like one movie from the JP /JW series except from JP itself.  Everything that came after it was crap.

[The Atroxious]

I suppose that the reason the "monsterization" of the dinosaurs, and exploitation of the hybrid aspect of the story linemail doesn't bother me is that in addition to being a biology nerd, I'm also a speculative fiction nerd. It doesn't bother me in the same way that I can play BioShock and enjoy the very unscientific plot, even though I'm also interested in peculiar real life mutations in humans. I find the topics of fantasy dinosaurs and fantasy mutations just as interesting as the topics of real dinosaurs and real mutations. In fact, I find that the interests complement each other. In seeing something fictional, I'm often lead to wonder how close we could get to that in real life, which leads me to research the topic, so I become more knowledgeable about the topic, and in turn, I'll often imagine how I would have handled the topic of my research in a speculative fiction setting. Similarly, I like the idea of hybridized dinosaurs because I enjoy both the fantasy element, and the fact that it sparks my imagination in my thinking about real world animals, real world genetics, and how they compare to the Jurassic World version. My opinion on how Jurassic World actually handled the topics of dinosaurs and gene splicing is, however, a different story...

[Arioch]

Lets not kid ourselves, it's not like the first movie was all that concerned about accuracy either. If it wasn't for Horner the raptors would have had flickering tongues like a snake. No joke. But at least they were still presented like plausible animals, unlike JW and anything that will come after... as flawed as that movie was, I can't stop thinking back at the stampede scene in The Lost World where the sauropods were definitely NOT galloping out of control.

The hybridization angle wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't handled in such a shlocky way. Not a single clever or quotable line like the dinner scene from the first movie. But to be fair how many big blockbusters today even try to be a bit thought provoking, and instead just appeal to the lowest common denominator?

[Jose S.M.]

Lets not kid ourselves, it's not like the first movie was all that concerned about accuracy either. If it wasn't for Horner the raptors would have had flickering tongues like a snake. No joke. But at least they were still presented like plausible animals, unlike JW and anything that will come after... as flawed as that movie was, I can't stop thinking back at the stampede scene in The Lost World where the sauropods were definitely NOT galloping out of control.

At least they took in count some recommendations from their palentology advisers in the first movies, I'm not even sure they have an adviser in this one and if they do, they have it just to put it in the credits, because the way the dinosaurs move is something that a paleontologist or a biologist would have told them it's very wrong.

[DinoToyForum]

Lets not kid ourselves, it's not like the first movie was all that concerned about accuracy either. If it wasn't for Horner the raptors would have had flickering tongues like a snake. No joke. But at least they were still presented like plausible animals, unlike JW and anything that will come after... as flawed as that movie was, I can't stop thinking back at the stampede scene in The Lost World where the sauropods were definitely NOT galloping out of control.

The hybridization angle wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't handled in such a shlocky way. Not a single clever or quotable line like the dinner scene from the first movie. But to be fair how many big blockbusters today even try to be a bit thought provoking, and instead just appeal to the lowest common denominator?

Isn't the point, though, that the makers of Jurassic Park did correct the tongues because they were concerned about accuracy. They cared about portraying the dinosaurs as living, breathing, accurate animals, so they ran their animatics past a consultant palaeontologist, and corrected things accordingly. Of course there must have been mistakes and compromises for story, drama, or deadlines (I've worked as a palaeontological consultant so I know from personal experience how that goes), but the general philosophy seemed to be one of making the dinosaurs as accurate as possible. Those involved confirm this:

Phil Tippet has said: "Steven was very concerned about getting the dinosaurs sanctioned by the paleontological community", and that "[Spielberg] didn't want to have these things portrayed as monsters. He wanted to bring them back down to a naturalistic level and wanted them portrayed as animals, so we spent a great deal of time working with the palaeontologists and doing a lot of field work to help portray scientifically accurate behaviour."

Steven Spielberg himself said that Jurassic Park: "was a wonderful collaboration between effects and artistry and science and palaeontology".

Randal M. Dutra, senior animator for Jurassic Park said: "Jurassic Park was one of the first films where we could have dinosaurs move as animals, so we poured over animal footage so that we could inject these [input devices] with believable movements and stay away from third hand fantasy interpretations, but really go to the source, that was nature."

Whether they completely succeeded, or went as far as they could, is up for question, but the intention was there. It's a fact that in 1993 Jurassic Park completely reshaped how the general public perceived dinosaurs, for the better.

(A side note on the Dilophosaurus in JP. I quite liked the idea of certain dinosaurs having features that weren't known from the fossil record. When I first heard about the Indominus, I though it might be a species known from DNA but not from fossils, which I thought would be a creative way of injecting some more speculative aspects, but with a believable explanation that remained true to the source material. I was giving them too much credit!)

[Halichoeres]

(A side note on the Dilophosaurus in JP. I quite liked the idea of certain dinosaurs having features that weren't known from the fossil record. When I first heard about the Indominus, I though it might be a species known from DNA but not from fossils, which I thought would be a creative way of injecting some more speculative aspects, but with a believable explanation that remained true to the source material. I was giving them too much credit!)

I always thought (okay, maybe not always, but once I learned the first thing about genetics) that of course if they're getting DNA from mosquitoes, 95 times out of 100 it's going to be from some animal we've never heard of. Inventing a dinosaur for that scenario would be a great move.

[Arioch]

^^I agree with all of the above. The rendering and animation of the animals has always been the strongest suit of the franchise to me, atleast as far as the first 3 movies go. Enter JW, the dinosaurs no longer move believably nor they seem wholly integrated with their surroundings. They now exist in the same area as most generic cgi movie monster or superhero flicks, where flashy and overexaggerated visuals are the priority.

However, the original designs already had a lot of stylization going on and that's goten exponentially worse in JW, but it didn't have a great base, accuracy wise to begin with. Back in 1993 we already knew that a T. Rex head doesn't look like that nor were its arms that long, for instance. And not even the largest Deinonychus specimen was believed to be that big  Despite the respect Spielberg and co. showed for paleontological advise and adherence to realism, they were still doing a monster movie were the creatures "needed" also to be scary and some concessions had to be made.

Lets not kid ourselves, it's not like the first movie was all that concerned about accuracy either. If it wasn't for Horner the raptors would have had flickering tongues like a snake. No joke. But at least they were still presented like plausible animals, unlike JW and anything that will come after... as flawed as that movie was, I can't stop thinking back at the stampede scene in The Lost World where the sauropods were definitely NOT galloping out of control.

At least they took in count some recommendations from their palentology advisers in the first movies, I'm not even sure they have an adviser in this one and if they do, they have it just to put it in the credits, because the way the dinosaurs move is something that a paleontologist or a biologist would have told them it's very wrong.

Not sure if he is credited as an actual consultant but he did say that JW has the "best and most believable science"  out of all the Jurassic movies. Take that as you will.

[suspsy]

Dr. Wu states "You are acting like we are engaged in some kind of mad science. But we are doing what we have done from the beginning. Nothing in Jurassic World is natural. We have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And, if their genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality. You asked for more teeth."

This quote pretty sums up everything. All JP creatures are genetically altered, that's why they're not actual dinosaurs. I know it doesn't make sense for real science, but it's sci-fi what we're talking about. People should start to take this literally and uncritically, like we do with everything in other sci-fi franchises, and enjoy the damn thing for what it is. There are still plenty of aspects to pick on in a movie, like a lame plot or bad acting, and stuff like that.

This is the worst excuse I have ever heard, quite potentially for anything. People take lore and continuity in science fiction pretty damn seriously. And this "we screwed the dinosaurs up on purpose so everyone get off our backs" "subplot" (one line isn't a damned subplot) doesn't explain the terrible redesigns that came out of left field for JW. If suddenly in a Star Wars movie Chewbacca was replaced with a dog people would be up in arms, so why are we suddenly over-analyzing or unjustified in some way not to want every herbivore design replaced with a grey pile of jello, and the Pteranodons replaced with anorexic gargoyles?

I second this. Frankly, I get the impression sometimes that Universal could replace all the "dinosaurs" (might as well use quotation marks at this point) with giant piles of manure and there would still be some people going out on a limb to defend the portrayal so long as the JP logo was attached. For myself, I've always believed in calling a spade a spade.

[suspsy]

My thoughts on the identity of the dinosaurs...

I took the creatures in Jurassic Park as the best efforts the scientists were capable of with the resources available to them. Frog DNA was used to fill in the gaps, but only because there were gaps. The dinosaur DNA was otherwise representative of a particular dinosaur species, and therefore they could justify attaching an actual dinosaur genus name to each animal. Any errors were essentially accidental. Sure, there was some wriggle room (as discussed in the book), but in principle, as the technology improved, and as the gaps got filled in, the dinosaurs could become purer. As a dinosaur lover, I loved that premise.

JW shat on all that. It made it clear (in the movie world and real world) that the animals are dinosaurs in name only. In the case of 'real' dinosaur genera, the errors are cynically intentional (not accidental), and in the case of hybrids, they are going out of their way to do the opposite of what Jurassic Park attempted to do. In this sense, JW is the antithesis to JP. As a dinosaur lover, I despise that premise. As a Jurassic Park lover, I despise that premise.

It has become irrelevant what names are attached to the creatures, because they are no longer dinosaurs in any meaningful sense. So, it is pointless trying to identify the animals in the JW2 trailer.

That's my gut reaction to what I'm seeing. I think this is why as a dinosaur lover I'm disappointed and checking out (forget all the other problems with JW as a movie). I don't know how other Jurassic Park fans, especially those who are also dinosaur fans, can stomach it, but to each their own. All I know is it isn't for me.

I second this as well. Thank you, Adam!!!

[DinoToyForum]

^^I agree with all of the above. The rendering and animation of the animals has always been the strongest suit of the franchise to me, atleast as far as the first 3 movies go. Enter JW, the dinosaurs no longer move believably nor they seem wholly integrated with their surroundings. They now exist in the same area as most generic cgi movie monster or superhero flicks, where flashy and overexaggerated visuals are the priority.

However, the original designs already had a lot of stylization going on and that's goten exponentially worse in JW, but it didn't have a great base, accuracy wise to begin with. Back in 1993 we already knew that a T. Rex head doesn't look like that nor were its arms that long, for instance. And not even the largest Deinonychus specimen was believed to be that big  Despite the respect Spielberg and co. showed for paleontological advise and adherence to realism, they were still doing a monster movie were the creatures "needed" also to be scary and some concessions had to be made.

Lets not kid ourselves, it's not like the first movie was all that concerned about accuracy either. If it wasn't for Horner the raptors would have had flickering tongues like a snake. No joke. But at least they were still presented like plausible animals, unlike JW and anything that will come after... as flawed as that movie was, I can't stop thinking back at the stampede scene in The Lost World where the sauropods were definitely NOT galloping out of control.

At least they took in count some recommendations from their palentology advisers in the first movies, I'm not even sure they have an adviser in this one and if they do, they have it just to put it in the credits, because the way the dinosaurs move is something that a paleontologist or a biologist would have told them it's very wrong.

Not sure if he is credited as an actual consultant

I agree with you that they didn't get everything right in Jurassic Park. Sometimes it may have been intentional, sometimes not. There are lots of factors at play, lots of people involved, pulling in different directions. But they did their best.

It is the same in the world of dinosaur toys, of course.

[Faelrin]

Okay I like the suggestion of that being Agathaumas more instead of Sinoceratops. Regardless of what it is, it would be odd if it has gaping holes inside its skull. Though they always did have issues with shrinkwrapping around the fenestra, that would be taking it to the extreme. I do like how I can make out eyespots on it though, so at least they went the route of making it fit the whole display thing. It is a rather low quality motion blurred scene from the trailer. Maybe there will be a better look at them in the final film, assuming they get any real screen time. Ditto on that mystery theropod. Honestly I am just really glad the Carnotaurus is as decent as it is. The others don't matter much to me right now. I am wondering how much involvement Horner had on this film as consultant. I know he teased the Carnotaurus at the JW Exhibition - Jurassic Outpost event back in April that I attended, so he was at least aware of that one.

Honestly I feel like this franchise is in a bit of a darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario. I suppose that's the same for everything these days (like Star Wars for example). Someone will find something to take issue with regardless, even if the issue is legitimate or not. Honestly I just hope I can get some decent toys out of this film, aside from an enjoyable popcorn flick.

[Neosodon]

People take lore and continuity in science fiction pretty damn seriously. And this "we screwed the dinosaurs up on purpose so everyone get off our backs" "subplot" (one line isn't a damned subplot) doesn't explain the terrible redesigns that came out of left field for JW. If suddenly in a Star Wars movie Chewbacca was replaced with a dog people would be up in arms, so why are we suddenly over-analyzing or unjustified in some way not to want every herbivore design replaced with a grey pile of jello, and the Pteranodons replaced with anorexic gargoyles?

+1
What I don't get is how they can have a billion dollar budget and somehow not be able to afford the trouble of simply looking up proper dinosaur reconstructions.

[John]

People take lore and continuity in science fiction pretty damn seriously. And this "we screwed the dinosaurs up on purpose so everyone get off our backs" "subplot" (one line isn't a damned subplot) doesn't explain the terrible redesigns that came out of left field for JW. If suddenly in a Star Wars movie Chewbacca was replaced with a dog people would be up in arms, so why are we suddenly over-analyzing or unjustified in some way not to want every herbivore design replaced with a grey pile of jello, and the Pteranodons replaced with anorexic gargoyles?

+1
What I don't get is how they can have a billion dollar budget and somehow not be able to afford the trouble of simply looking up proper dinosaur reconstructions.

Hollywood suits like those of Universal have the final say in things when it comes to Summer blockbusters like this including story lines,what actors to cast,even creature designs whether they know anything about dinosaurs or not.Especially when they are the ones footing the bill.It's like it is for Star Wars,Star Trek,Marvel or DC superheroes,Transformers ect.
First and foremost,they want to appeal more to a wider mainstream audience than to a few die hard fans.
And as someone who thinks that 99.99 percent of fan made stories and fiction sucks hard,I am fine with the way the Jurassic Park movies have been turning out so far.