Talk:Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Title

This should be re-titled to "Untitled Jurassic Park sequel" for now. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Calling this movie Jurassic World 2 is just adding to the mass confusion people have oddly developed to this film. I don't know how everyone decided the fifth film in the franchise should be titled with a 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.222.80 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the page ready for creation?

Filming has begun. Is the page ready to become an official article?  AJFU  (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@AJFU: Yes, since filming has begun, we can move the article into the mainspace. Please go ahead with the move, and let us know if you have any difficulties. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Hello. While attempting the move, I received a message that read You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. I guess it's because Jurassic World 2 already exists as a redirect page.  AJFU  (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought that might happen. You can request a technical/uncontested move at WP:RM. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Name

Jurassic World 2 shouldn't be the title of this page until the title is officially announced. It should just be "Untitled Jurassic Park/World sequel" for now. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jurassic World 2 seems to be the common title by an overwhelming margin. A Google search for "Jurassic World 2" brings up 25 million results, while "untitled Jurassic World sequel" brings up 437,000 results and "untitled Jurassic Park sequel" brings up 226,000 results. Although maybe it might be worth mentioning that the film's official title has not been announced yet.  AJFU  (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being patronising or if you're just completely moronic by saying that. If I wanted news about the new Han Solo movie, I'd literally type "Han Solo" into Google, not "Untitled Han Solo film" as the Wikipedia page is known as. The studio has NOT released an official title, therefore "Jurassic World 2" is NOT the official title. Plus it's confusing anyway considering, if any numbers are involved, it should be "Jurassic Park V". 109.151.218.211 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant no patronisation or moronicy. My point was that Jurassic World 2 is the name most commonly used to refer to the film, and pages are usually titled using the subject's common name. While it's not the official title, it is the one that seems to be most widely used.  AJFU  (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not rename the article "Jurassic Park 5" as the director confirmed that's what the movie literally is?  Cineplex  (talk) 12:15am - February 26, 2017

Bayona has said that it's both Jurassic World 2 and Jurassic Park 5. Neither title is official, but between those two names, shouldn't the more-common title be used? Or would it be better to rename it as "Untitled Jurassic World sequel"? I'm not sure how these types of situations are usually handled. The same interview mentions that the film does have an official title that has not been released yet ("I asked Bayona if the film has an official title yet, and while he said yes, he couldn't tell me what it is."). Maybe we could add that as a reference or explanatory footnote to clarify that the official title has not been announced.  AJFU  (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We are going to wait until the official title of that movie comes up before we rename anything. It's the best course of action without creating disruptive editing. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Jurassic World is the fourth film in the series. The next film is the fifth film in the franchise. Everyone is calling the next film JW2 because that is the lazy title the media immediately began shoving down everyone's throats. I have never before seen the fifth film in a series get titled as being the second film. I have never seen a more obvious sequel as JW, which is very clearly a sequel and a fourth installment, get regarded as a spin off or be referred to as " the first film". It makes no real sense that everyone is treating JW as some separate franchise, when it very clearly is not. People should watch JW again and ask themselves how it is anything other than a sequel. The director did say the film acts as a sequel to JW, but he also very specifically said "it is very much the fifth entry in the saga". What other movie franchise ever titled the fifth entry with a 2? It makes literally no sense that everyone is referring to the next film as JW 2. I personally would rather people call it what it is, Jurassic Park 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.222.80 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Rexy Confirmed

With Colin Trevorrow confirming on twitter that Rexy will return for the sequel should this be included on the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.79.26 (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Teaser Image

Can we remove the current teaser image for the film? It's just the original teaser image for Jurassic World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.121 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Rafe Spall's character name revealed

This link reveals the full name of Rafe Spall's character as Eli Mills. But we might want to find a reliable to include on here. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

the Indoraptor . . .

Is there an RS yet that defines what "Indoraptor" means (besides the raptor portion)? I keep thinking about Viet-Nam. 50.111.55.122 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Claire and Owen's relationship

Zeekoy91 (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC) ---> i removed the edits that said that Owen and Claire were together, as no pre-release marketing material ever confirmed this to be the case. Therefore, it is a spoiler.

Opening sentences

In writing lead sections, the opening sentences need to connect readers to the topic through noteworthy characteristics. This means that it is not necessary for every film article to identify the director if the director is not well-known or a reason that the film is notable. This film is primarily notable because it is part of the Jurassic Park franchise and follows Jurassic World, and the opening should reflect that. Identifying director and other crew members should follow that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

What "important plot details"?

VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I edited the "plot" sequence to mention a scene that several reviewers have picked out as the most poignant in the movie (and one, whose platform happens to be YouTube, actually complained about its absence from this Wikipedia article). Because this scene has been mentioned and deleted before on the grounds of it making the plot summary "too long", I undertook to abbreviate the plot summary by tidying up redundant sentences, of which there were many.

Now I didn't source the reviewers and provide a reason for considering it the most poignant scene – fair enough, that was a mistake and I'll cop to it. What I don't understand is how my abbreviations are supposed to have "removed important details from the plot in the process" as the editor who reversed my changes alleges. I don't want to start an edit war, so if someone can explain what the problems were, I'll let be. Here are the changes I made. Can someone tell me what "important plot details" become unclear with each of the following?

Existing sentence	My edit	Rationale
a small team of mercenaries arrive on the abandoned island to collect a sample... for retrieving its DNA.	a small team of mercenaries arrive on the abandoned island to collect a sample... for its DNA.	They're taking a sample; they want DNA from the sample. What information does the word "retrieving" convey that wasn't there without it? It's awkward English (a more natural phrase would be "to retrieve its DNA").
...the lagoon gate is left open, allowing the Mosasaurus to escape into the ocean.	...the lagoon gate is left open, allowing the Mosasaurus to escape.	Where else would it be escaping to?
a U.S. Senate hearing debates whether Isla Nublar's dinosaurs should be saved from an impending volcanic eruption.	a U.S. Senate hearing debates whether to save Isla Nublar's dinosaurs from an impending volcanic eruption.	Passive voice has its place, but this isn't it. The Senate aren't pondering this as a philosophical point, they're deciding whether to take action.
Dr. Ian Malcolm says that the dinosaurs should be left to die as he believes nature is correcting the mistake that John Hammond made by cloning the dinosaurs long ago.	Dr. Ian Malcolm recommends leaving the dinosaurs to die to correct the mistake that John Hammond made by cloning them long ago.	Second mention of "the dinosaurs" in one sentence is redundant. To "say something should be done" is to "recommend doing it". I'll grant that my phrasing removes the notion of "nature" as agent; but however thematically significant that might be, it's not a plot point.
Jurassic World's former operations manager, Claire Dearing, has created the Dinosaur Protection Group, an organization to save the dinosaurs.	Jurassic World's former operations manager, Claire Dearing, has instituted the Dinosaur Protection Group to save them.	I'll cop to "instituted" being just as awkward and inappropriate as "created". "Started" might have been better. Something called the Dinosaur Protection Group is obviously going to be an organization, not (say) a new piece of technology. "An organization to save the dinosaurs" is awkward phrasing. "The dinosaurs" were the object of the previous sentence and it's still a bit redundant to repeat the noun.
After the Senate rejects the rescue of the dinosaurs...	After the Senate rejects the dinosaur rescue...	Yet another redundant use of "the dinosaurs". Nobody is going to wonder whether we've suddenly started talking about rescuing puppies if we start using pronouns instead of repeating nouns, or, as here, use "dinosaur" adjectivally. The phrasing is more coherent without the repeated noun.
Claire meets Lockwood at his estate in Northern California. Lockwood and his aide, Eli Mills, intend to move the dinosaurs to a new island sanctuary, where they will live without human interference.	Claire meets Lockwood and his aide Eli Mills at his estate in Northern California. They plan to move the dinosaurs to a new island sanctuary, free of human interference.	She meets them both, not just Lockwood. Mills does not, in fact, "intend" to move the dinosaurs to a new island sanctuary at all, although he does appear to intend so at this point in the movie. The three of them (not just Lockwood and Mills) do discuss plans for moving the dinosaurs to the sanctuary; Lockwood and Claire wrongly believe this discussion to be in good faith. What information does "where they will live without human interference" convey that "free of human interference" does not?
Zia tries her best to keep Blue alive.	Zia works to keep Blue alive.	OK, this one does unclarify a small point (is Zia doing her very best?) but I don't see that this removes plot-critical information.
Claire and Franklin use an abandoned gyrosphere to flee from the pyroclastic flow...	They flee from the pyroclastic flow in an abandoned gyrosphere...	The previous sentence makes clear that "Claire and Franklin" are the subject, so the repetition of their names is redundant. "They flee in an abandoned gyrosphere" is more informative than "They use an abandoned gyrosphere to flee". It makes it clear that they are inside the gyrosphere when it falls off the cliff.
Lockwood, informed by Maisie, confronts Mills about the auction but is murdered by him.	Informed by Maisie of the auction, Lockwood confronts Mills, who murders him.	Active is better than passive. The rest of the edit is to bring Mills to the position of being the subject of the active verb.
Owen and Claire escape and find Maisie, who shows them the auction, as the Indoraptor is sold, despite Wu's warning. Owen frees a Stygimoloch to disrupt the auction.	Owen and Claire escape by freeing a Stygimoloch, find Maisie, and disrupt the auction as the Indoraptor is sold, despite Wu's warning.	I'll cop to removing the point that it is Maisie who directs Owen and Claire to the auction. Is that really an important plot point? However, my edit is more accurate with regard to the role of the Stygimoloch. Owen does not "free it to disrupt the auction"; by the time it disrupts the auction it is already free. Owen frees it by encouraging it to break down the wall of its prison and thereby facilitate his and Claire's escape.
and she is the reason John Hammond, who was against human cloning, ended his partnership with Lockwood.	and she is the reason John Hammond, who was against human cloning, ended their partnership.	It's reasonably intuitive, since Lockwood is mentioned in the first clause of the sentence, that he is the implied antecedent of "their" – especially since we do already know that Hammond and Lockwood were partners.

And that's it. That's all my edits. Can somebody point out what important plot details I have removed?

Here are two reviews that single out the abandoned Brachiosaurus as a singularly poignant moment:

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-chris-pratt-1202829194/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/movie-reviews/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom/movie-review/64481604.cms

VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the part about the Brachiosaurus without crossing the world limit in one of my recent edits. It was made possible as some editors corrected many of the mistakes you have pointed out and appropriately trimmed the plot. Achat1999 (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of the details were not important but provided clarification. A sentence where details were providing clarification was "After barely surviving a Baryonyx attack, Claire and Franklin reunite with Owen as the volcano erupts. Claire and Franklin use an abandoned gyrosphere to flee from the pyroclastic flow." Using "they" instead of "Clarie and Franklin" would have implied all three people used the gyrosphere to escape the pyroclastic flow, which was not what happened. As for the sentence explaining why John Hammond ended his partnership with Lockwood, your edits to it were logical and shortened it but the edited version would not have made sense to readers not as well versed in English grammar like you or many other editors. No matter, like I said before, many of those mistakes have now been corrected, incorporated differently or removed altogether by me and other editors. Thank you for pointing them out and giving explanations for each one though. Achat1999 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus scene

Since the plot has been significantly shortened by removing details that are not very important, can we keep a one sentence summary of the scenes where the lone Brachiosaurus dies and Isla Nublar is destroyed? This is how I have incorporated both scenes in the plot, "An abandoned Brachiosaurus watches it leave and is killed as the volcanic eruption destroys Isla Nublar." I would really appreciate some advice about it. Achat1999 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw that too. I've put it under "Reception", where it may last longer than in "Plot". After all, if it had been cut the plot would be pretty much the same, although the story would be vastly inferior. But several critics pointed it out especially, so there's three solid sources to justify it being in the "Reception" section. (I still think it makes sense to mention it in "Plot", but as long as it's in the page somewhere I won't raise any objections.)

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about saying your edits removed many important details earlier. Certain details that are actually important have been removed or trimmed greatly by others. I have put the Brachiosaurus scene in the Plot section but it could be removed again. Although it is less likely to be removed now as I have trimmed the plot further by using pronouns and clarifing certain sentences. The current word count is 674. Achat1999 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)