Talk:Jurassic World/Archive 1

The Rumored Plot Section
First time user, so forgive me if I'm out of line bringing this up, but I see several issues in the Rumored Plot Section.

I'm seeing the name of the movie styled as JURASSIC PARK 4, in all caps. I don't know why this would be, I've never seen anything else like that on Wikipedia.

Also, several sections here have been directly quoted, which isn't indicated by quotations. This also concerns me as this area, particularly the "(Yet,Anyway)" reads extremely wrong based on everything else I've read on Wikipedia.

I don't know if this matters, but the section also mentions a piece of concept art, which if you follow the only source link available, clearly states "Not original Artwork." I don't know if that's acceptable or not, but I can't imagine so. I'm trying to get into wiki's policies on article writing and what's not acceptable, so still haven't found any of the rules that apply directly here, but I'll update if/when I can locate those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lackingnovelist (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome, Lackingnovelist! Please don't feel "out of line" bringing up anything that you feel is wrong with the article. The feelings of a newcomer are just as valid as anyone else's. The section certainly sounds off, from your description, and looking at the history, another editor has removed it. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Hopefully this will also see the end of the edit war over the redir. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Development of Jurassic World → Jurassic World – The film now has a title and there is no reason to have a development page and a film article since it is a high profile film i think it deserves an article before production like The Avengers: Age of Ultron or Ant-Man. Koala15 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Koala15 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:NFF, not in production, development pages are allowed, as I've shown the nominator with Development of Watchmen. Seeing as the development article is different than a film article, there currently isn't anything to put into the article, therefore it's too soon and unnecessary. The redirect I created is justified.Rusted AutoParts 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would support having Jurassic World redirect to Development of Jurassic World for the time being. D arth B otto talk•cont 06:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That could be arranged. Rusted AutoParts 10:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Rusted. We should keep the article at this page until production is confirmed to have started, especially given the insane history of this film continually being postponed and revived over the last 11 years. Crumpled Fire (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Delete this until in production (WP:NFF if anyone cares about policy)
Titling the article "Development of Jurassic World" is just an evasion of WP:NFF.

90% of this article is contradictory "rumours".

Look at the absurdly titled section "2013: Conclusive confirmation of production details". It's not just "confirmed" (though as usual, "confirmed" just means "I read it somewhere" and then it didn't happen), it's "conclusive". Wow. "Conclusive". That means it's really, really, really going to happen this year. Or next year. Or the year after.... Begins with "scheduled for release on June 13, 2014." Ends with "would be released on June 12, 2015". And "production crews were aiming to start filming on June 24, 2013". All complete fantasy and wish fulfilment and never happened.

This article should be merged and cut to a paragraph in the franchise page until they start shooting film. Now it's just an article that violates policy, nothing but gossip and speculation years before the film comes out. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. This isn't about the film, it's not about the production, it's about the development of a long delayed sequel. Much like Development of Watchmen. Rusted AutoParts 15:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone could make such an article about any proposed film using that sophistry. It is clearly an evasion of WP:NFF. But I don't expect any contributors to the article to agree. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are sorely incorrect. There is no NFF violation here. Rusted AutoParts 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Has the film started shooting? No? Thus the article violates WP:NFF. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh hey look, other films that have yet to start filming: The Avengers: Age of Ultron, SpongeBob SquarePants 2, Inside Out (2015 film). Should I find more violations of WP:NFF? GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAP. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This articles only purpose is to preserve the info until the movie starts filming then it will become a film article. Koala15 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which blithely assumes the film will be made. If it ever is, all the false starts that fill up this article will be summarised into one paragraph. There's little worth "preserving", and that is not a function of Wikipedia. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * sigh*. Yes, there's that possibility, but if it fails this is where we would put the info. It's not a film page, it's a production/development page that details in detail the production woes. Rusted AutoParts 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't "sigh" at me as If I'm too stupid to get it. I know what it is, and what you want to do. The problem is that it is an article about a film, (no matter what you title it) that has not started principal photography. A category of article that is specifically excluded by policy. Even aside from that, it's troubling because the whole thing is sourced from press releases from people trying to make the film. These are leapt on and cited as "confirming" the film is being made, that this person or that is going to work on it, even when a few months later these are contradicted by the next round of bumpf. The current round of rumours is naively titled "2013: Conclusive confirmation of production details"!!?  Come on. What makes this year's rumours more real than any others? They have contradicted themselves already ("scheduled for release on June 13, 2014."; "released on June 12, 2015.") There is nothing but hot air while it spins its wheels, as it has for 12 years and counting. There is no critical examination of what is really going on -- something that WP editors can't do, as that would be WP:OR; so if you delete the hot air, as you should, you are left with nothing, which is why the article should be deleted. It's worthless, I'm sorry for those who have wasted their time on it, but it is 202.81.242.216 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rusted AutoParts is missing the point, we are not gonna keep this page and a film article this is all the info that exist on the film. That's why when the time comes we will change it to the film article. Koala15 (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since that's what you intend, put it in it an WP:INCUBATOR. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both of you fail to see the point. The article is staying where it is when the film article is created as it is able to thrive on it's own as a development of the film article. That was the consensus from your move request. Rusted AutoParts 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You do know it was my idea to change the name of the Jurassic Park 4 article to Development of Jurassic Park 4 right? So i think we know why we did it. Koala15 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's quite obvious. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel this strongly about the issue, nominate this page for deletion. D arth B otto talk•cont 23:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * IP editors can't AfD. So you can safely ignore policy until someone else notices. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be condescending with me- I'd actually be intrigued to hear what you have to say. D arth B otto talk•cont 01:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah we should just put it in a incubator until it starts filming. Koala15 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that you do not find the information useful, but others will. This article is able to present the entire timeline of what has happened since the sequel was first considered. We could try to summarize some details further, but there is enough coverage from over the years to treat this as a piece of history. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Scified
This appears to be an umbrella site for fan-created web sites, which would make its page Jurassicworld-movie.com unusable as a reference site since it's a) user-generated content and b) a fan site. Also, it's a self-described marketing site to promote the movie: "Scified creates customized, tailored websites for fans of popular science fiction film franchises. We offer unique environments where fans can interact with one another and discuss their favorite sci-fi movies. Scified also acts as a valuable marketing engine ... Scified puts the power of marketing in the hands of the fans.

This item about the start date was "according to a tweet made by Kauaimovieguy," Try using that as a citation on even a college paper, let alone an encyclopedia entry. Kauaimovieguy, per his Twitter page, is Bob Jasper, who is not a journalist or involved with the film or in the movie business at all &mdash; he gives tours of the defucnt resort where was Elvis Presley's Blue Hawaii was filmed. That doesn't make him a published authority on Hawaii filming. Where did Bob get his information on the Jurassic World start date? Who knows? It's just some guy tweeting a rumor.

This site does not include any original news, but simply aggregates things it finds on the 'net &mdash; and clearly, it's not very discriminating in choosing content to pass off as fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ComicbookMovie.com is not a reliable source
It's recently been announced by Ron Howard that Chris Pratt will star in Jurassic World alongside follow actress Bryce Dallas Howard. Here' is the official source. ComicBookMovie.com is not a reliable source. Something more concrete must be used to include them in the article of the production as of 2013/2014. 71.188.18.94 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur. WikiProject Comics has been through all this. The site is almost entirely user-submitted content and does not pass the standard for WP:RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Tags
The above helps bring up the point that many of the cites in this thing are not reliable journalistic sources but incredulous fan sites relying on tweets from unverified accounts, unattributed claims, repeated rumors and not very stringent vetting. Sometimes these sites attribute a journalistic site, in which case we should link to that original site, which did its own original reporting, rather than to the copycat site just re-reporting someone else's work. And there are instances where the editors here interpret and read into what those fan sites say, which is speculation.

I'm also not sure why we're reporting early rumors that are turning out to be wrong. Every large science-fiction movie creates speculation in the fan press. That's neither news &mdash; as in hard facts &mdash; nor is it encyclopedic: What is the educational value of things a relatively small number of fans outside the mainstream are speculating and rumormongering among themselves? As it stands right now, this article is more a fan site itself than it is an encyclopedia article. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is complete fanwank. Full of rumours and people "confirming" this or that, and then a few months later it hasn't happened, and is replaced by another "confirmed" date/star/writer/director/etc. The film has not started principal photography. It may never do so. Until it does, per WP:NFF a Wikipedia article is premature. 202.81.243.53 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic World or Jurassic Park 4
In light of a recent move by, I requested that he move it back to its previous title of Development of Jurassic World, but I also wanted to open up a discussion as well, so consensus can be made should something like this come up again in the future.

My position is that the article covers its previous title of Jurassic Park 4 fairly well, and that because the film is currently titled Jurassic World, that its development companion article should reflect that title.

Thoughts?  g s k  04:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic World
Now that we have an article for Jurassic World i ask this question again. Is there enough info to warrant a separate article from the film? Koala15 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. The Jurasic World separate article only covers direct coverage of this production, not prior Jurassic Park 4 attempts. That's all here. Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't seem long enough for its own article, it can easily be moved into a development section in the main article. Koala15 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are much shorter articles on Wikipedia. It's not necessary to eradicate an article because you feel it's too short. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 23:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or if redirection is needed, we could move all unused info about prior attempts to Jurassic World 's subsection at Jurassic Park (film series). <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 00:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I back a merger; not too big to combine. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All info is now at Jurassic World. If there's no objections, ill redirect this article. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 02:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What you guys did was essentially a WP:CUTANDPASTE move, which has now been reversed. Would suggest you try a WP:RM. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have deleted any non-Jurassic World related info from the film page and reinstated a link to this page. It's common to have development articles. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 15:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my aim to copy and paste the article, I was simply wanting to maintain this article as a development page, as articles like it exist (again Production of Watchmen) all while also starting the film article. On the film article, there's details into the development of the current production, not the ones from 2004 and such. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 18:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's not enough content to warrant two articles, especially for an as yet unproduced film. As you can see from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, we only need one article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note. The page Jurassic World redirected here, but it had a substantive edit history. So to preserve the content I have moved it to Jurassic World film. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Development of Jurassic World → Jurassic World – disambiguation not needed per WP:PRECISION – BOVINEBOY 2008 13:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Article treats the topic as a film, not the development of one, thus the titling should follow that described at WP:NCF. (rationale modified from original at WP:RM/TR. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: The redirect Jurassic World currently has a different target article: Development of Jurassic World. Also, in the edit history of Jurassic World, it looks like there may have been some edits that were moved via cut-and-paste moves to Jurassic World (film). History merging might be needed. Steel1943  (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And now, since it seems that a few editors are in a bit of an edit war in regards to the name of this article, I have turned this move request into a full discussion. In fact, the original rationale for this move request is currently invalid since when this request was made on WP:RMTR, this article's title was Jurassic World (film). (Discussion transferred here from WP:RMTR.) Steel1943  (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I support having one single article for the film and the development of it, at the title Jurassic World -- is that, indeed, not what is usually done? Film pages having a development-of section within? DeistCosmos (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on April 11, 2014 — Filming has been confirmed to begin on April 11, at which time an article will finally be warranted for this long-awaited production (as per MOS). Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Filming starts this month. Koala15 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per pigs flying.  g s k  21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dinosaurs on screen
All the other Jurassic Park (film) articles include a section called "Dinosaurs on screen", much like a Cast list for the dinosaurs. Before deleting the list from this article remember it was an effort to improve the article added in good faith. Maybe the section should wait until the film comes out and the trailer is not a good enough source for what will actually appear in the final film but those are different arguments, and much more in keeping with the idea of making a better article. -- 109.76.128.44 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that "all the other articles" include a section called "Dinosaurs on screen" does not mean that 1) it is a worthwhile inclusion 2) that it belongs in this article as well. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But I think the argument warrants some extra attention. The article on the first film contains a list, but the list has actual real-world information to deliver about how the creatures were conceived, made, and voiced. The article is also well sourced.  In contrast, the second film has some information about character voicing, but the entire section is unsourced, so what value does it actually have?  By the time we get to the third film, it's just an indiscriminate list that is also unsourced. And at Jurassic World, what is being proposed is yet another bare-bones list based on personal recognition of these dinosaurs.  The value of this list has declined significantly from the well sourced content in the main article to where we are today. If you still feel the content belongs here because it's been in all the other articles, I'd suggest that you and  (assuming you are different people) bring the other articles up to the standard of the first film article first.  I don't however see the value of a raw list.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "bring the other articles up to the standard" if that was the rule Wikipedia would never get anywhere.
 * If you think Dinobots and I are not different people you are so far from understanding WP:GOODFAITH it is very sad.
 * Nevermind. Make your excuses, let Wikipedia continue to be wildly inconsistent.
 * You could have suggested improvements to this article but instead you criticize other articles, and make work for others instead of trying to make improvements yourself. Maybe Dinobots will take up your challenge but I wont be baited by your empty unconstructive accusations. -- 109.76.128.44 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustrations but 1) Whether or not your IP personality and Dinobots are the same, is not germane to this discussion. I initially thought the commenting IP might have been Dinobots, but I didn't want to assume erroneously, and thus cautiously assumed that it might be different people. That's pretty much as AGF as you can get.  2) You are resorting to personal attacks, which isn't constructive. You argued for the inclusion of the content, and I responded with a pretty clear suggestion that the content be removed because the content being added now is not even close to the content that appears in the article for the first film, and the scope of the content for every subsequent movie has declined for every subsequent article.  I'm not even sure at this point what you would consider a reasonable solution to this discussion, since rather than rebut with content or a salient counter-argument, you're now criticizing my general contributions at Wikipedia, which is not acceptable.  If you have an argument stronger than "All the other Jurassic Park (film) articles include a section called "Dinosaurs on screen", much like a Cast list for the dinosaurs" I'm still open to hearing it, but please drop the personal attacks, because I do a pretty good unpaid job here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb is on the money. Using existing lacklustre articles as a reason for doing something elsewhere just precipitates a race to the bottom. Indiscriminate lists are trivia and have no place here. Add in the fact they're based on reading the trailer tea-leaves and it only gets worse. Wiki need not be up to the minute, but it must be accurate and present info. of a good standard, just hold back until a section can be rightfully made of a similar calibre to that which is in JP1's article.
 * If you're keen to make a contribution in this area why not help bring 2 and 3's section up to standard? -Oosh (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Trailer CG Gate criticism
Should this be addressed on the page? Treorrow says that the gate for Jurassic World in the film will have a practical, real wood feel. I believe it warrants some sort of inclusion on the article. Here's the source. 2601:C:780:234:98F3:9670:3BCD:BA95 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is relevant. CCamp2013 (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * and why don't you think it's relevant? No reason for it? Ok... 2601:C:780:234:FDD2:EA5D:A9AB:EF0F (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems trivial to me. How does knowing what the door is made of improve our understanding of the film? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III
Does this new upcoming movie take place after the events in The Lost World: Jurassic Park? And more importantly, does it ignore the events in Jurassic Park III? AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe i read it takes place after Jurassic Park III. Koala15 (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I just found out that Jurassic World will ignore the events of both The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III. And here is the proof: http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2015/04/jurassic-world-will-ignore-the-events-of-the-lost-world-and-jurassic-park-iii/ AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic Park 4 title
I know there has been disagreement in the past about the Jurassic Park 4 title being used in the top section. The reason given for this is that it was never an official title, however, it's already currently mentioned four times in the article:

- ''While Marshall and Kennedy were no longer signed with Universal Pictures in a production capacity, it was said that the two would remain involved with the studio and its plans for Jurassic Park 4. In November 2009, Joe Johnston discussed the possibility of Jurassic Park 4, stating that the story for the film is completely different from that of its predecessors and would take the franchise into a whole other trilogy. In a January 2010 interview, Johnston reiterated that Jurassic Park 4 was set to be the beginning of a second Jurassic Park trilogy.''

- On June 21, it was confirmed that Rise of the Planet of the Apes writers Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver would be scripting Jurassic Park 4.

If the title isn't official, should it really be used in the article at all? Also, the filmmakers themselves have actually referred to the film as Jurassic Park IV (or 4) in interviews over the years. Universal also referred to the film as such in an old press release a couple years ago. In my opinion, that sounds official to me. Just thought I would bring that up, because if we're not going to treat it as an official title, then it doesn't seem like it should even be mentioned at all in the article, as it is in the instances I mentioned above. InGenuine (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've provided some new references to the article, in which Trevorrow states that the film was previously called Jurassic Park IV. Personally, I feel like that's worth a very brief mention in the top section of the article, but I won't add it if it is deemed unnecessary. I would just like to point out the fact that many of the article's references from 2001 to 2013 refer to the film as Jurassic Park IV. The article for Spectre (2015 film) specifies that that film was once known as Bond 24, to avoid confusion about it having two separate titles. I don't know if a film's previous title is actually worth mentioning, so I just thought I would bring it up. InGenuine (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't particularly think it warrants mention, and at least not in boldface, just as we wouldn't make a lot of fuss if Variety called it "Untitled 2015 Jurassic Park film". We wouldn't change the lead to: Jurassic World (formerly known as Untitled 2015 Jurassic Park film) is an upcoming 2015 American science fiction adventure film... I don't think that working title necessarily belong in the lead. However, it's not something that I'm willing to make enemies over, so if you think it belongs in there, I'll yield. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just wanted to point out that, apparently, the Jurassic Park IV title was not a working title. By that, I mean that it was not just a temporary title until a new title could be determined (as defined at the working title article); Trevorrow said he actually chose to rename the film. As for whether the previous title should be added, I'll wait for others to give their thoughts (if they have any) before adding it into the article, just in case there is consensus against it. Good day. InGenuine (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem much reason to include it, as it was never an official title &mdash; it appears to just be a shorthand description used for convenience. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are some quotes from Trevorrow:
 * Reference #104 in the article: "it's either that or Derek and I build a new movie called Jurassic Park IV and that's what it was called at the time."
 * Ref. #95: "if we're going to do this we really need to build a different movie that can also be called Jurassic Park 4."
 * Ref. #118: "I emailed Steven–one of the most carefully worded emails I've ever written–and explained every single reason why we should change the title from Jurassic Park 4 to Jurassic World."
 * There seems to be some indication that this actually was an official title. If that is the case, I don't know if it would warrant a mention. But personally, I don't care if it's mentioned or not. InGenuine (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Release date
It should be noted somewhere that in New Zealand, the film is being released in cinemas on June 11th. Not a preview or premier, but an official release. This makes it technically releasing at least 36 hours before America and the rest of the world.163.47.236.2 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the film
The film has come under some criticism for scientific inaccuracy because the dinosaurs do not have feathers. Most experts now regard it as beyond doubt that theropods such as Velociraptor would have had extensive feathering (in fact, all groups of dinosaurs may have been feathered), yet a decision was made not to reflect the current science. This seems a sadly missed opportunity as many viewers who are not experts, take much of their knowledge of dinosaurs from these films. The science has come on by leaps and bounds since the first film in 1993, with more than 40 species of feathered dinosaurs now known, yet the depictions of them in Jurassic Park have not. Can this page be updated to reflect this debate? See references here: Jumpycrawl (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/20/a-velociraptor-without-feathers-isnt-a-velociraptor/
 * http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/austropalaeo/2014/07/why-jurassic-park-had-it-all-wrong
 * http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/27/4151992/no-feathered-dinosaurs-in-jurassic-park-4
 * http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/austropalaeo/2014/07/were-all-dinosaurs-feathered-kulindadromeus/


 * You state "in fact, all groups of dinosaurs may have been feathered" - NO!  That's utter nonsense, as skin impressions exist for many groups of dino's that show hard-scales, not feathers. A feathered ankylosaurid, for example, would have been biologically ridiculous, or on a large sauropod would have resulted in an over-heated dead animal very quickly.  Feathers appear to have developed on many types of theropods in the Jurassic, but certainly not all species. This is an aside to the content of the article, of course, but criticisms should be restricted to those that are scientifically sound.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article currently includes a comment attributed to the director saying the film will not include feathered dinosaurs, but it doesn't seem particularly well sourced. I don't think it is appropriate to debate the scientific accuracy of a work of fiction, especially since the film that has not been released yet, I think we will need to wait and see what actually happens in the film. Perhaps more information about the production will make this issue clearer but the simplest answer (the usual answer from Hollywood) is that they weren't going to let the science get in the way of the story. The film is part of a series, I think it would be more strange if they went against the established look and style of the previous films. -- 109.76.128.44 (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding that waiting until the movie is at least in post-production before its content is judged is prob a good idea, the decrying of the film's non-/anti-science perspective has been quite loud amongst dino-geeks and so perhaps deserves a mention with a couple of refs to the most erudite articles (Jumpycrawl's list is an excellent place to start). However, disagree with the premise of your last sentence as it is a false dichotomy. If this film is part of the same series, then it should be noted that the three prev films have shown a clear progression from scaly lizard 'raptors to a more bird-like form with some token feathers at the back of the skull, in an attempt to recognise the changes in science's understanding over the intervening years. So featherless 'raptors in JP IV would be a reversal of the trend in the look and style of the previous films. /2¢ 106.68.230.73 (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussions about the scientific inaccuracies of this film have formed a decent portion of the reaction to the trailer, so they deserve a mention. However, I think the section ought to be renamed something like "Scientific accuracy" or "Scientific analysis" in order to make it more precise in what it is referring to, especially since "Criticism" is more often reserved for the section talking about actual film critics judging the film based on its artistic merits. Faray (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Budget
This good faith edit by isn't adequately justified, so I have reverted it. His explanation, "budget - two against one, two genuine sources report a budget of "about" $150 million" seems like cherry picking to support a specific POV. We don't pick data based on popularity. If a reliable source like Entertainment Weekly reports $180M, that's worth noting. The figures are estimates anyway and will change when real data comes in. There's also the question of interpretation: whether or not $180M is "around" $150M. What's the margin of error for these estimates anyway? But I digress. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The current formatting ($150–180 million+) does not make any sense at all. A budget range only makes sense if the budget is likely to be between the two bounds i.e. if the budget is most likely between $150 and $180 million. That is clearly not the case here: The Hollywood Reporter states that the film cost $150 million while Entertainment Weekly states it cost "$180 million-plus". According to the two sources the film could have cost $150 million, $180 million, $190 million etc. There is no point having the upper-bound figure of $180 million in this case because it is not the upper bound. All we really know is that the film cost at least $150 million i.e. $150 million+. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Good point. I'll yield and revert. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nick Robinson
Someone please update the Nick Robinson links. It's just too fucking hilarious right now. You'll know what I mean once you click any of the Nick Robinson links. 111.68.60.247 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple questions (cast references, track listings)
1: Is it still necessary for all those references to be listed in the cast section? I know plot sections don't require references since the film itself is the reference. Is this the same for the cast? 104.14.86.151 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 2: Unless I'm misremembering, I thought I read somewhere that a film's musical score should not mention track listings in the article, which this article is doing as of this writing. It seems like a trivial list- 2602:306:80E5:6970:1D02:4A8C:C573:A07B (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite right. MOS:FILM: Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Generally positive"
Editors keep changing the critical response summary from some variation of "mixed to positive" to "generally positive". For instance here and here. Do we all agree that since the Metacritic assessment describes "average" reviews, that "generally positive" is inaccurate? I'm not a big fan of the intro summary anyway, and less so about the phrase "mixed to positive", but something along those lines is more accurate. "Critical response to the film ranges from average to positive." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I loathe ranges in such things. I would much rather see "generally positive" than "average to positive" More to the point though, including such text is technially synthesis. We don't need to include such a summary at all, and could instead just say exactly what the sources report. If there's going to be a conflict about this, let's take it out entirely. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, . I'm fine with acing it, because I don't see the need to summarize something that's already summarized. There are two disparate opinions on the critical response. Picking "generally positive" as has done here is inaccurate and tends to inflate the subject. Without getting too far into Tropic's head, superficially it seems like he's making a judgment call that since the percentage skews higher than 50% that implies mostly positive since it's the high-end of average? I dunno. Seems like clear OR to me. I don't know that I consider a range to be synth, since if we had two reliable sources at odds over a gross total, it wouldn't be inappropriate to present the value as a range, and we're not concluding anything, we're presenting the data as reported. Again though, I'm fine with the removal of the summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've actually typed "generally positive" since Metacritic fell into the yellow, (even if 58/100 and the overall gist of reviews is that World is overall good not average). I've made other edits/corrections and left it be, but don't think I was the one who changed your mixed response summary. I like having a opening summary line, it looks formal, but it can enter grey area when RT and Meta have somewhat conflicting scores. I don't know, do whatever. Just wanted to clarify I wasn't one adamantly changing the summary line to "generally positive". tropicAces (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Barring any input from Tropic or other editors that might sway my opinion, if you cut the line out I'll support your decision. DonIago (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It was something that we wound up doing at Mad Max: Fury Road after so many editors kept coming by to change the summary to "...received universal critical acclaim" and similar fluff. I wish the film community would sack up and take a position on this in the MOS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, we did? From Manual of Style/Film: The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd sack up and re-read the MOS. (Embarrassing, but thanks for the edification.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey and . Would the opening Reception line of something along the lines of  simply "Jurassic World received praise for its visuals and score, but criticism of its tone and writing from critics" work? Doesn't mention what kind of reviews it received, just what the general feelings were. Just a thought. tropicAces (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that, . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Why has it been changed to "mixed to positive reviews". It has received generally positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:7949:7DA:9F54:8030 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has not received "generally positive reviews". Do you see the Metacritic summary where it describes "mixed or average" reviews? That doesn't mean "generally positive". We don't need the summary statement, regardless. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Metacritic isn't the only website that has reviewed the film. They tend to be much harsher in their criticism of films. It has a 70% on RT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:2885:1F1D:3D91:1AFE (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Metacritic is not a review website, they are a critical response aggregator. They count the good and bad reviews and summarize the critical response. Secondly, I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that since you personally find Metacritic's critical response measurement to be "harsher" than Rotten Tomatoes', that Metacritic should be discounted as a reliable source? On what rational basis would we ever do that? When do we ever discount a credible source simply because they're "harsher"? Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral point of view that represents majority opinions. Picking one review aggregator just because we personally like it better is inconsistent with a neutral point of view. Both aggregators are considered reliable sources by the WikiProject Film community, so we present both of their opinions with the weight that they deserve. We also don't "cherrypick" sources and content that supports our POVs. That would be academically dishonest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I just wanted to give some feedback that the entire Reception section is very well-written and informative. Axing the "generally positive" statement was a brilliant move. Kudos to everyone involved for the teamwork on this one. Well done! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dont reveal the plot so soon
I would request the Jurassic world Wiki Page owner to not reveal the plot of the movie so soon, At least wait for few days. Revealing the plot on the first day of the movie's release is also a kind of piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, there is no page owner. Wikipedia does not censor, nor do we provide spoiler warnings or suppress spoilers. Your suggestion that revealing the plot on the first day of the film's release equates to piracy, is incorrect. We are allowed to summarize film plots just like any other academic medium. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

But apart from that, no one ever explains what happens to all those pterodactyls flying away from the island! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Damian Quill (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

unnecessary opinion from Casey neistat on 'reception' section
So who is Casey Neistat? Is he a qualified film critic or journalist? The comment that he finds it not 'good' but 'satisfying' is not encyclopedic, factual nor cited. This should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:7CF:2F32:1097:10E:64DC:24D6 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cut it. It was added in this edit, and my guess is that it's self-promotional. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Budget in Box office Tab
One user feels need to give the production budget its own sentence to lead off the box office section (before the "as of June 16, 2015..."). I erased it as its already mentioned one sentence later, as well as is, in my opinion, out of place if not completely irrelevant, but they added it back. Thoughts on this? (cc, ). --tropicAces (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrasing is weird. It "carries" a production budget? Anyhow, since the section is focused on the box office, I would start with content about the box office, i.e. the gross. "As of MMDDYYYY the film grossed $NNN million" and combine that with info about the budget afterward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I reworded it and combined it with the box office opener (just to appease him; I've dealt with this kid before and he seems stubborn in his ways). Let me know what you think. tropicAces (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Poifect - Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * look at his comment on me. I wrote own BOM's numbers and he acts like because I didn't do research into the film's foreign numbers, I'm in the wrong. And justifies his $120M after incentives with "took some effort to find that film". [sigh] I don't know, man... Haha -tropicAces (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Monday Update
Every Monday it's the same thing you guys always post weekend numbers as soon as the sun sets in Europe and stop counting then but that's not true since Sunday in the US keeps going and many people watch movies late on Sunday which keeps updating weekend numbers well after the "final weekend gross" articles are written. That means that any mentioning of record set in this article are outdated, especially since it's always #2 by a few million, even though it probably hit #1 by Monday. Like that Avengers record when those articles were posted 21 hours ago we were still playing the movie Sunday night here in the US so it went up 2 million in the last 3 hours of Father's Day, so in order words you guys need to show the fully updated numbers in this article that includes all of Sunday night, not just Europe's, or else you have the records wrong. In fact, I'm sure this movie already hit 1 billion as of now Giggett (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While your logic may be there, a film's gross is marked by official reporting's, not "I assume at some point today it will cross X amount". Also, as an American film, its gross is not marked until the American day ends. TropicAces (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)tropicAces

Huge sentence
There's a sentence that goes for 94 words and 625 characters in the controversies section. 14.2.3.47 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I got it. Broke it down into 3 sentences TropicAces (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)tropicAces TropicAces (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur names: 'it' or 'she'?
A quick question: should the animals in the film be referred to as 'it' or 'she'? It's a well-known fact that all the animals created in the first film were female, which I assume continues in the fourth instalment. I feel as though the films animals should be given 'she' or 'her', as many of the film's dinosaurs, such as the Tyrannosaurus and the Indominus, as well as all four raptors, have distinct personalities and identities, and so should be referred to with more personalizing language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.41.252 (talk • contribs)
 * If those pronouns were used in the movie, then we can use them.-- Silver    Samurai   02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the feminine pronoun makes the article more "in-universe." Too many are trying to make the article a short "story" rather than giving a brief synopsis.PNW Raven (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack
Is there any particular reason for why the track listing is absent from the page? 112.134.92.200 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it goes against the guidelines in the manual of style, as mentioned in the section above. AJFU (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Zach and Gray's Parents
Zach and Gray's parents are divorced. This was confirmed in Jurassic World: The Game by Ludia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:CD62:B535:68E1:179F (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not divorced in the movie. They are just starting the process by talking to divorce lawyers. That is why the brothers were sent away. Presumably, the parents intended to tell them after they got back, although the younger boy already realized this and told his older brother while they were on their way to Jurassic World.PNW Raven (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Plot
In paragraph 3, the boys were not forced off road, but decided to go exploring beyond a breach in the containment wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G33Z3R (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to revert all the unnecessary changes made to the plot and semi-protect this article. These unsigned users are loving to put in too many details. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now made 40 edits to the Plot section in the past 24 hours. That means that I, more than anyone else besides Libertarian12111971, have been able to rewrite the plot summary as I see fit. While I think I've improved the quality of the prose and the faithfulness to the film while removing unnecessary details and adding important ones, I do recognize that I don't own the article (WP:OWN). As such, if I've reverted your edit the plot section and you feel otherwise, I would be happy to discuss it here. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know often the loudest voice in an argument often wins, whether or not they are actually right. Similarly, editors who watch an article very closely (like me) often can force their preferred version of the article down everyone else's throat, whether or not their version of the article is the best version possible. Anyway, I don't own the article, so it you feel like making a change to the plot section, go for it! For what it's worth, wording has more to do with stylistic preferences than grammar. I may still revert your edit, but unless it's vandalism I will definitely explain my reasoning. Also, the plot section currently has 697 words, so unless there is an absolutely vital detail we have somehow forgotten, we probably shouldn't make it any longer. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference for the content (I haven't seen the film). I'm operating solely in a gnome capacity, trying to keep the cruft down. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand trying to stay within the word count limit as some movie articles still have this issue bad. I think most of it is in great detail without even telling everything in the movie. As seen before in my edits to help for clarity reasons I edited the Mosasaurus sentence in more detail so make it clear the one character wasn't the intended victim as shown in the film the animal came out of the water with force trying to catch the Pteranodon. It's not out of sympathy for the character, but I guess my weakness for wanting to be specific about the scene.Mcelite (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm inclined to just ignore the Plot section until heavy editing dies down (or the article gets protected), and then bring it into compliance with WP:FILMPLOT if it's necessary at that point. DonIago (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care how this plays out, but currently the Plot ends with Atop the helipad, the T. rex roars across Jurassic World. It's a cute line and all, but it's almost entirely irrelevant to the story. Any opinions on keeping it in/leaving it out? If I was trimming for word-count I'd nuke it (again). Thanks. DonIago (talk)


 * Believe me, no one understands the importance of trimming unnecessary words better than me (see my user page), and my edit history is littered with arguments with other editors who don't see why I keep deleting stuff. But my vote is to keep this one in. I don't feel super-strongly about it, but I think this scene is a necessary plot point: it dramatises the fact that the dinosaurs have once again taken control of the island. The end of the story isn't really "the people are evacuated", it's "the dinosaurs own the island again". Without that scene, the reader has to infer. Popcornduff (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I also support the inclusion of that sentence, as it includes an important plot element: the dinosaurs have taken control of the island once more due to the events of the film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone keeps removing the sentence "Claire rescues Owen from a Dimorphodon and they kiss." This is another point I think is important - it's the pivotal moment in the romance subplot. As far as I can see in the edit summaries, there's been no explanation for its removals. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it pivotal that they kiss, or is it pivotal that they rekindle their romance? DonIago (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Their kiss shows that their romance is rekindled. We should describe the tangible on-screen event, triggered by the rescue: the kiss. Popcornduff (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I disagree, but I'm willing to defer to other editors. That said, I haven't checked the word-count on the Plot lately either. DonIago (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you disagree - "the hero kisses the love interest" is usually an important bit in Hollywood plots. Ding! The romance has worked! (Yawn...)
 * We definitely have words to spare (I've repeatedly removed redundant crap), though of course we shouldn't include anything that isn't necessary. Popcornduff (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The "kiss" reference is just too "in-universe," and it sounds juvenile, given the rest of the article's style. There was no real romance previously. That had one "bad date."PNW Raven (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand. "In-universe" how? "Claire rescues Owen from a Dimorphodon and they kiss." That's it. It's an event that happens in the story, no different from "The raptors track the Indominus‍'​ scent into the jungle" or "Owen, Claire, and the boys are cornered by the raptors." Are you just embarrassed by kissing or something? And why sum up the entire romance subplot at the end of the plot summary? Popcornduff (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with being embarrassed. The way it was written sounded silly and out of tone from the rest of the article. I had included a brief explanation early on about their relationship (which was not a romance) but it got taken out.PNW Raven (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why it sounds silly and what you meant by "too in-universe"? Like I said before, ""Claire rescues Owen from a dimorphodon and they kiss" is a simple descriptive line and I wouldn't have expected anyone to find it objectionable.
 * I don't understand all this back and forth about the romance subplot. The subplot is simple: Owen and Claire dated once. Owen and Claire kiss. Owen and Claire decide to "stick together". We should include these three bits of information in the summary at the points when they occur. No need to summarise it all in one lump at the end, or use euphemisms like "rekindle their romance" or anything like that. It's not like it's some crazy non-linear story where things are hard to follow if you don't change the order. Popcornduff (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The plot is the one section of an article that gets to be in universe. However, much like Doniago, on articles that are prone to heavy editing at first (blockbuster action and scifi) I wait until all of the fanboys are done with their cruft before I go in to take my trimming hatchet to it. Millahnna (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

May I ask who locked down the article again? I haven't been able to find out by looking through past edits, and I do find it disrespectful. Many account-less users (such as myself) are providing useful context and important prose work in their edits (snuck, not sneaked people), and locking down the article denies them that opportunity. I understand the need to protect against vandalism and people imposing their own will, but I do think a free and open article will be beneficial in the long run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.41.252 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)