Jurassic Park Series

[predxeno]

As I said, I've pretty much gotten over it by now, I decided I really don't need to do to JP4 what countless fans do to AVPR, especially if the movie isn't even released yet.

[OmegaZilla]

There is a difference between a detail that has no contradictory or illogical values implied within it and an action or detail that does. The T.rex being the original one from Nublar is nothing influential to the storyline. It's backstory. Decoration.

Why do you keep bringing AvPR up? Its faults are found elsewhere, not in backstory details.

[predxeno]

I just don't see the point of making a reference like this if it doesn't play an actual part in the story, many movies and games rely on stars or cheap marketing tricks rather than good writing to sell their stories, that's why I was initially very pessimistic and cynical about all this.  Likewise I may ask why we keep bringing this topic back up when I said I've already gotten over the issue.

[OmegaZilla]

It adds to the story and provides an emotional connection with the first film. Not that difficult. It's like Sting which appears both in The Hobbit and in The Lord of the Rings.

[predxeno]

See it from my point of view, a background detail would be like saying ALL the dinosaurs are from the first film, but if the producers make a very specific point of mentioning that the T-Rex is the same from the movie then it implies that the creature is special in some way.  This builds hype among the fans who believe this special connection must have been added in for a reason.  However, if this detail isn't followed through in the film (or even mentioned) then it sounds less like a background detail to add an "emotional connection" like you said and more like an extra trivia piece added on only after-the-fact. 

When JP5 or JP6 comes out, nobody will even pay attention to this detail and future directors may disregard it entirely when making their films; this is an opening for inconsistencies and contradictions, and what was once a nice little fun fact becomes a flame war with different sides arguing different perspectives.  As someone who literally takes ALL licensed works as canon, you can see why this may be a bigger issue for me than for a more casual fan.  If the producers want to add a detail like this in their film then I'm fine with it, just respect the series enough to tell it with integrity rather than with the intent of sounding cool, the scene of Pratt controlling raptors and leading a motorcycle gang doesn't inspire me with confidence in this regard.

[OmegaZilla]

You're overthinking things too soon. We know too little of everything to project anything like this.

[xeno-kaname]

It adds to the story and provides an emotional connection with the first film. Not that difficult. It's like Sting which appears both in The Hobbit and in The Lord of the Rings.

Yeah I argued this with him a few pages ago.

[predxeno]

I hear you, hence I said:

As I said, I've pretty much gotten over it by now, I decided I really don't need to do to JP4 what countless fans do to AVPR, especially if the movie isn't even released yet.

[Vertigo]

The JW website's been updated with a pretty cool article on Rexy. Sounds like it comes directly from Brian Switek to me (who apparently does now officially advise on the web content).

It also implies there may be subadult rexes at the park.

[OmegaZilla]

They based the scraping thing on the recent Tarbosaurus discoveries I think.

[Alien³]

They came to the island built a park, found and captured the original Rex (who had been living on the island for 25 years) and now house her in their T-Rex Kingdom attraction.

Why is that a hard pill to swallow?

[HuDaFuK]

Yeah, I don't get why this is such an issue.

Personally, I find it a little silly purely because it adds nothing of any substance to the film and sounds like a marketing gimmick. But it doesn't do any damage to the film either. It's pretty much irrelevant.

[Vertigo]

Ugh, I was hoping I'd changed the subject.

[Gilfryd]

JW sketches by Matt Frank -

Spoiler

[close]

[xeno-kaname]

Yeah, I don't get why this is such an issue.

Personally, I find it a little silly purely because it adds nothing of any substance to the film and sounds like a marketing gimmick. But it doesn't do any damage to the film either. It's pretty much irrelevant.

It's not a marketing gimmick though. Predxeno refuses to see it another way though. But here's as clear as I can make the distinction be:

The difference between a gimmick and a homage is that a gimmick is made to get you TO the theatre, whereas a homage is meant to cause an emotional or nostalgic response while you're IN the theatre.

They haven't even shown a Rex yet in the commercials, let alone the fact that it's the old one. For somebody to know this fact, you'd have to be a huge fan that actively looks for this information. And those people, like us, are going to go see the movie one way or another. Even if we have our doubts about the movie.

As of now, it can't be classified as a marketing gimmick. I wouldn't even say it was so if they do show the T Rex in a commercial, because that seems mandatory to the franchise.

Now if they flat out focus a trailer on a line that mentions it's the old Rex, then yeah I can't defend it there. But even so, not a big deal. So yes hopefully this argument ends already.

At least until we get a trailer with a damn T Rex