JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM

[Faelrin]

So I'm watching the Behind the Scenes thing, and I noticed there's a Baryonyx maquette (behind the Tyrannosaurus maquette) and it has the notch in its jaw (about 1:32). I screencapped it here: https://i.imgur.com/ruBxoqD.png

Yet it seems to be missing the notch in the prior scene of it with the CGI version. Weird.

[WarrenJB]

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

Thirded.

First and foremost,they want to appeal more to a wider mainstream audience than to a few die hard fans.

Whenever I hear or read something like this, and especially in this context (if die hard fans = palaeo fans concerned with accuracy) I wonder why there's an assumption that it's an either/or situation.

I guess you might get a bit of friction with feathery raptors, unfortunately ("more like a six-foot turkey!") but would Dudebro McPopcornface's cinematic experience be completely ruined by dinosaurs that matched the shape and alignment of the actual bones? And perhaps that didn't always go after people like piles of crack cocaine...

[John]

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

Thirded.

First and foremost,they want to appeal more to a wider mainstream audience than to a few die hard fans.

Whenever I hear or read something like this, and especially in this context (if die hard fans = palaeo fans concerned with accuracy) I wonder why there's an assumption that it's an either/or situation.

I guess you might get a bit of friction with feathery raptors, unfortunately ("more like a six-foot turkey!") but would Dudebro McPopcornface's cinematic experience be completely ruined by dinosaurs that matched the shape and alignment of the actual bones? And perhaps that didn't always go after people like piles of crack cocaine...

Are you really complaining about the scenes of dinosaurs attacking people?!? That's the whole premise of the Jurassic Park movie series! 
Seriously though,even though the movie designs do not pass the accuracy test,it does result in very accurate versions of certain species that were in the movies turning up in model lines.Don't be too surprised to see something like a super accurate Baryonyx turn up from Safari and/or CollectA in the near future after it's appearance in this newest movie,as Dimorphodon did from CollectA after appearing in Jurassic World.

[suspsy]

I seriously doubt that the CollectA Dimorphodon was in any way influenced by Jurassic World. If CollectA was that easy to persuade, they'd have released a new Velociraptor and at least two other dromaeosaurs by now.

Which would admittedly have been cool.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I seriously doubt that the CollectA Dimorphodon was in any way influenced by Jurassic World.

Papo, on the other hand...

[John]

I seriously doubt that the CollectA Dimorphodon was in any way influenced by Jurassic World. If CollectA was that easy to persuade, they'd have released a new Velociraptor and at least two other dromaeosaurs by now.

Which would admittedly have been cool.

Not in it's design no,but in the particular species it seems obvious it was a factor.It being a British pterosaur also played a big part.
And CollectA does not seem to be so adverse to famous species anymore,so you can never count out a Velociraptor showing up in the line at some point.After all,you can't get more classic than Brontosaurus,the one dinosaur that is even more famous than T. rex.

[Neosodon]

After all,you can't get more classic than Brontosaurus,the one dinosaur that is even more famous than T. rex.

Brontosaurus is famous but more so than T. rex? I don't think any dinosaur comes even close.

[suspsy]

I seriously doubt that the CollectA Dimorphodon was in any way influenced by Jurassic World. If CollectA was that easy to persuade, they'd have released a new Velociraptor and at least two other dromaeosaurs by now.

Which would admittedly have been cool.

Not in it's design no,but in the particular species it seems obvious it was a factor.It being a British pterosaur also played a big part.

Sorry, John, but it doesn't seem obvious at all. Dimorphodon has long been a fairly well-known pterosaur, and as you said, it's a British species, so naturally Anthony Beeson would be inclined towards it. I don't believe JW had any influence in the mater at all.

And CollectA does not seem to be so adverse to famous species anymore,so you can never count out a Velociraptor showing up in the line at some point.After all,you can't get more classic than Brontosaurus,the one dinosaur that is even more famous than T. rex.

I don't think they ever were adverse to famous species in the first place. I think it was more a question of them choosing to include more obscure taxa in their lines as a means of standing out, which has certainly worked well. But there's still been plenty of famous species in every one of their lines.

Also, Brontosaurus is so NOT more famous than T. rex, dude. Indeed, it's debatable whether or not it's even in the top three.

[laticauda]

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.

The magic of the first movie was seeing these amazing animals in front of you and for a moment you believed that they could be right there.  You could almost reach out and touch them.  This made each scene scary, riveting, with a sense of wonderment.  Even the old Dinosaur "monster movies" had an element of "holy cow that's a living dinosaur."  Since then the direction has been pure entertainment and "spectacle" driven.  Sure their are elements in JP lost World and JP III in which they tried to highlight dinosaurs being dinosaurs, but they kept getting further and further away from that idea.  With JW they are trying a different premise.  They are genetically made assets.  I don't think it is a cope out (doesn't mean it is a good decision either), lets be honest, if the technology did exist, there will be corporate greed trying to find as many different avenues to use them.  Even the first movie delt quietly with corporate greed.  It is definitely not replacing Chewie with dog people.  (Talking about greed, the executives at Universal and even Steven Spielberg) They seem more interested in making something that they can  "slap it on a plastic lunch box" for the general public to consume.   Is it a good excuse for the lack of research that is gone into the storytelling, no it is not, but then again, this isn't the original JP, they didn't change cannon, they are exploring a different story. 

Sorry for the rambling, but at this point either you enjoy the movies for what they are, or you condemn them for what they are not.  This was a franchise that wasn't originally going to be a franchise.  It was a one shot deal.  Their was no planned squeal after the first film (or book) and it had no clear direction.  Success brought a new book and further movies into the franchise it has now become.  I can dream of how I would make the films, but I didn't make them, I just have to choose if I want to watch them or not. 

[ITdactyl]

'Had a good chuckle reading through this article.
(I'm aware a lot of people also loathe this site. I'm not endorsing it.  I just found the article timely and amusing.)

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/something-even-more-unlikely-than-cloning-dinosaurs-happened-in-the-jurassic-world-trailer/

It's about the pyroclastic flow in the trailer.... and crispy Chris Pratt.

[John]

I seriously doubt that the CollectA Dimorphodon was in any way influenced by Jurassic World. If CollectA was that easy to persuade, they'd have released a new Velociraptor and at least two other dromaeosaurs by now.

Which would admittedly have been cool.

Not in it's design no,but in the particular species it seems obvious it was a factor.It being a British pterosaur also played a big part.

Sorry, John, but it doesn't seem obvious at all. Dimorphodon has long been a fairly well-known pterosaur, and as you said, it's a British species, so naturally Anthony Beeson would be inclined towards it. I don't believe JW had any influence in the mater at all.

And CollectA does not seem to be so adverse to famous species anymore,so you can never count out a Velociraptor showing up in the line at some point.After all,you can't get more classic than Brontosaurus,the one dinosaur that is even more famous than T. rex.

I don't think they ever were adverse to famous species in the first place. I think it was more a question of them choosing to include more obscure taxa in their lines as a means of standing out, which has certainly worked well. But there's still been plenty of famous species in every one of their lines.

Also, Brontosaurus is so NOT more famous than T. rex, dude. Indeed, it's debatable whether or not it's even in the top three.

Where have you been?Did you miss The Flintstones?Or pop culture in general?Brontosaurus is a household name!It was the very image of what people think of when they think of what a dinosaur is.Why do you think such a big deal was made when the name was put back in scientific use in 2015?It certainly wasn't because it "wasn't even in the top 3 most famous dinosaurs"...

[Nanuqsaurus]

I seriously doubt that the CollectA Dimorphodon was in any way influenced by Jurassic World. If CollectA was that easy to persuade, they'd have released a new Velociraptor and at least two other dromaeosaurs by now.

Which would admittedly have been cool.

Not in it's design no,but in the particular species it seems obvious it was a factor.It being a British pterosaur also played a big part.

Sorry, John, but it doesn't seem obvious at all. Dimorphodon has long been a fairly well-known pterosaur, and as you said, it's a British species, so naturally Anthony Beeson would be inclined towards it. I don't believe JW had any influence in the mater at all.

And CollectA does not seem to be so adverse to famous species anymore,so you can never count out a Velociraptor showing up in the line at some point.After all,you can't get more classic than Brontosaurus,the one dinosaur that is even more famous than T. rex.

I don't think they ever were adverse to famous species in the first place. I think it was more a question of them choosing to include more obscure taxa in their lines as a means of standing out, which has certainly worked well. But there's still been plenty of famous species in every one of their lines.

Also, Brontosaurus is so NOT more famous than T. rex, dude. Indeed, it's debatable whether or not it's even in the top three.

Where have you been?Did you miss The Flintstones?Or pop culture in general?Brontosaurus is a household name!It was the very image of what people think of when they think of what a dinosaur is.Why do you think such a big deal was made when the name was put back in scientific use in 2015?It certainly wasn't because it "wasn't even in the top 3 most famous dinosaurs"...

Brontosaurus is popular, but it's nowhere near Tyrannosaurus. I'd say the top three most popular dinosaurs is:
1. Tyrannosaurus
2. Triceratops
3. Either Stegosaurus or Velociraptor

[Simon]

I seriously doubt that the CollectA Dimorphodon was in any way influenced by Jurassic World. If CollectA was that easy to persuade, they'd have released a new Velociraptor and at least two other dromaeosaurs by now.

Which would admittedly have been cool.

Not in it's design no,but in the particular species it seems obvious it was a factor.It being a British pterosaur also played a big part.

Sorry, John, but it doesn't seem obvious at all. Dimorphodon has long been a fairly well-known pterosaur, and as you said, it's a British species, so naturally Anthony Beeson would be inclined towards it. I don't believe JW had any influence in the mater at all.

And CollectA does not seem to be so adverse to famous species anymore,so you can never count out a Velociraptor showing up in the line at some point.After all,you can't get more classic than Brontosaurus,the one dinosaur that is even more famous than T. rex.

I don't think they ever were adverse to famous species in the first place. I think it was more a question of them choosing to include more obscure taxa in their lines as a means of standing out, which has certainly worked well. But there's still been plenty of famous species in every one of their lines.

Also, Brontosaurus is so NOT more famous than T. rex, dude. Indeed, it's debatable whether or not it's even in the top three.

Where have you been?Did you miss The Flintstones?Or pop culture in general?Brontosaurus is a household name!It was the very image of what people think of when they think of what a dinosaur is.Why do you think such a big deal was made when the name was put back in scientific use in 2015?It certainly wasn't because it "wasn't even in the top 3 most famous dinosaurs"...

Brontosaurus is popular, but it's nowhere near Tyrannosaurus. I'd say the top three most popular dinosaurs is:
1. Tyrannosaurus
2. Triceratops
3. Either Stegosaurus or Velociraptor

Gentlemen, gentlemen - before this discussion gets out of hand, let's remember a couple of things - 

John - You are seeing a generational gap at work in this discussion.  No need to be surprised at it, its just the way life works. I believe that both Suspsy and Nanuqsaurus are quite a bit younger than you or I are, so I'll enlighten them:

Suspsy, Nanuqsaurus - Back in the old days (in my case, 1960s and 70s, when I first became fascinated with dinosaurs), "Brontosaurus" was basically a synonym for "dinosaur".  Tyrannosaurus was probably in second place, along with perhaps Stegosaurus and Triceratops. 

TRex has become the "sexy" new favorite dinosaur, while the term "Brontosaurus" is (almost) obsolete, because outside of being taken out of circulation (until recently), it has become synonymous today with the old view of dinosaurs (you know, tail draggers and lake dwellers...)  but if you came of age in the "Flintstone" cartoon generation or thereabouts, "Brontosaurus" would have been the most commonly invoked dinosaur name you heard as you grew up...

[tyrantqueen]

I agree with Simon- it is a generational thing. Tyrannosaurus rex's popularity really skyrocketed with the release of Jurassic Park. When I think of the quintessential dinosaur of the 1950s, I think Brontosaurus. The swamp dwelling, tail dragging kind.

[BlueKrono]

Care to vote on it and bring this discussion to another thread?
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=6319.0

[stargatedalek]

I think people are confusing "popular" and "well known". A lot of people know the name Brontosaurus, but if they know the names of enough dinosaurs to even have a favorite they also know Tyrannosaurus which nine times out of ten wins out.

[Appalachiosaurus]

(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!)

Funny enough, that was actually in the original script for Jurassic World. Before Colin came along, there was a short screenplay written by Jaffa and Silver that was fairly similar to the film we got. It starred a new park, trained raptors, and a newly cloned dinosaur called "Malusaurus" that hadn't been found by any paleontologists. Colin changed it to a genetic hybrid, the reason being if the dinosaur was man-made in real life, it should be man-made in-universe, too. Personally, I think making it a hybrid was an excellent idea and that all animals cloned by ingen should be based on known genera, as to not confuse the laymen public. Hybrids do seem to be the next step in the Jurassic Park franchise, and as long as they are kept few and relevant to the story, I fully support seeing more in the later sequels.

[Neosodon]

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.

The magic of the first movie was seeing these amazing animals in front of you and for a moment you believed that they could be right there.  You could almost reach out and touch them.  This made each scene scary, riveting, with a sense of wonderment.  Even the old Dinosaur "monster movies" had an element of "holy cow that's a living dinosaur."  Since then the direction has been pure entertainment and "spectacle" driven.  Sure their are elements in JP lost World and JP III in which they tried to highlight dinosaurs being dinosaurs, but they kept getting further and further away from that idea.  With JW they are trying a different premise.  They are genetically made assets.  I don't think it is a cope out (doesn't mean it is a good decision either), lets be honest, if the technology did exist, there will be corporate greed trying to find as many different avenues to use them.  Even the first movie delt quietly with corporate greed.  It is definitely not replacing Chewie with dog people.  (Talking about greed, the executives at Universal and even Steven Spielberg) They seem more interested in making something that they can  "slap it on a plastic lunch box" for the general public to consume.   Is it a good excuse for the lack of research that is gone into the storytelling, no it is not, but then again, this isn't the original JP, they didn't change cannon, they are exploring a different story. 

Sorry for the rambling, but at this point either you enjoy the movies for what they are, or you condemn them for what they are not.  This was a franchise that wasn't originally going to be a franchise.  It was a one shot deal.  Their was no planned squeal after the first film (or book) and it had no clear direction.  Success brought a new book and further movies into the franchise it has now become.  I can dream of how I would make the films, but I didn't make them, I just have to choose if I want to watch them or not.

If the 3rd Jurassic World movie had a plot were a new company tried creating scientifically accurate dinosaurs I think that would really get the franchise back on track.

[Rain]

To me, the original was more about the characters and their development than it was about the dinosaurs which is why I think the franchise went downhill after the original. I liked Jurassic World better than the previous 2 because a lot of the focus was once again shifted back to the characters as opposed to the dinosaurs, though it didn't quite match up to the original. While some of the magic is lost with the dinosaurs being portrayed as monsters rather than living breathing animals, I don't necessarily think, in my opinion, that the franchise is going down hill because of the inaccurate representations and bad physics.

Sure , I'd prefer accurate representations but if the writing, character development, plot and everything else is good I'll easily overlook the botched designs. And no, I'm not saying Jurassic World was perfect on any of those accounts, just better than the previous 2.

Just my opinion.

[Arioch]

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.

The magic of the first movie was seeing these amazing animals in front of you and for a moment you believed that they could be right there.  You could almost reach out and touch them.  This made each scene scary, riveting, with a sense of wonderment.  Even the old Dinosaur "monster movies" had an element of "holy cow that's a living dinosaur."  Since then the direction has been pure entertainment and "spectacle" driven.  Sure their are elements in JP lost World and JP III in which they tried to highlight dinosaurs being dinosaurs, but they kept getting further and further away from that idea.  With JW they are trying a different premise.  They are genetically made assets.  I don't think it is a cope out (doesn't mean it is a good decision either), lets be honest, if the technology did exist, there will be corporate greed trying to find as many different avenues to use them.  Even the first movie delt quietly with corporate greed.  It is definitely not replacing Chewie with dog people.  (Talking about greed, the executives at Universal and even Steven Spielberg) They seem more interested in making something that they can  "slap it on a plastic lunch box" for the general public to consume.   Is it a good excuse for the lack of research that is gone into the storytelling, no it is not, but then again, this isn't the original JP, they didn't change cannon, they are exploring a different story. 

Sorry for the rambling, but at this point either you enjoy the movies for what they are, or you condemn them for what they are not.  This was a franchise that wasn't originally going to be a franchise.  It was a one shot deal.  Their was no planned squeal after the first film (or book) and it had no clear direction.  Success brought a new book and further movies into the franchise it has now become.  I can dream of how I would make the films, but I didn't make them, I just have to choose if I want to watch them or not.

If the 3rd Jurassic World movie had a plot were a new company tried creating scientifically accurate dinosaurs I think that would really get the franchise back on track.

Unfortunately I think its a bit too late to change course. Future Jurassic movies are going to venture further into sci fi, cheap action thrills while the "dinosaurs" look less and less like the creatures they're supposed to represent.

I don't wanna sound mean but I'm kind of hoping this franchise dies already. Its got nothing interesting to say, and there's so much you can do while you repeat the same iteration over and over: go to dinosaur island, stuff happens, science bad when you play god, rinse and repeat. Maybe then another dinosaur franchise can eventually take over, something that's time travel related (kinda like the show Terra Nova, but... good?), and not constrained by these structural and narrative issues that's been dragging the JP franchise down ever since the first one. And then there would be no excuse to not portray the dinosaurs as actual damn dinosaurs anymore.