Talk:Jurassic World/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cast list and order

I've reordered the cast list in the infobox per Template:Infobox film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well as per MOS:FILM. Please do not change the order without good reason. I used the billing block visible in this poster. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Restored again per the cited source. Please stop re-ordering them without providing a source or responding here. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In case this is in dispute by other editors, cast should be organized by the order in the poster billing block. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a fan poster, as you can see here. Stop restoring this order please. Sock (tock talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I will err on the side of caution for now, although it's funny that this "fan made poster" is one of the top results when searching for "Jurassic World poster" (and the only result that contains a billing block). So far every single secondary source website seems to have a different order for the cast (Apple, various movie news websites). While we don't like using primary sources, there is a cast listing here on the official website that should resolve any issues of cast order. BTW, being civil isn't optional. Telling other editors what to do in your edit summaries is rude. If you people would use the talk page instead of trying to use edit summaries to talk over each other maybe this would have been resolved with a lot less reverting... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Were you admonishing me to stop changing the order, Sock? I don't think I've changed the order unless someone made an unexplained change. I was only explaining MOS:FILM preference. If there is no official poster that includes a billing block, I'd probably argue that the closing credits should determine billing order, or perhaps the opening credits if there are clear "Starring" creds. I haven't seen the movie, and I have no dog in this race. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That was my mistake, I mixed replies to both you and Locke Cole. No worries. Sock (tock talk) 16:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Vivian Krill

Cast section lists her last name as Krill. Source makes no mention of this. Can someone confirm the last name? Is it listed in the credits? A Google search brings up no relevant results to confirm this. - 104.14.86.151 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pratt's prediction

Multiple non-trivial media sources, including CNN are reporting on the fact that Pratt accurately predicted that he would be cast in the fourth Jurassic Park film in a video he shot for the DVD release of Parks and Recreation Season 2 in 2010. Such coincidences are rare in media, so it would be nice to sneak this in somewhere. Wikipedia doesn't go in for trivia sections anymore, and there's no "Casting" section, so if the article wasn't locked I would have made it a second footnote after Pratt's name in the cast list. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

Nimitt88 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Marketing/promotion section

The marketing and promotion section was removed a month ago in this edit. Some of that information seemed fairly significant. Are there guidelines against such a section? 2602:306:80E5:6970:387B:B25B:B034:E5E1 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Since it was removed with no justification, I'd propose that you add it back with an edit summary along the lines of "restoring sourced content that was removed with no justification" and see what happens. You might also ask the editor. Maybe it was an oversight? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Last part of plot

How dare you DisuseKid Take that of!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkc19 (talk • contribs)

This is a cooperative page for discussion, not head hunting. I do believe that the films final scene is important to the article, but this is really no place for unconstructive, inflammatory statements. On a different note, does anybody know who re-locked the article? I find it unfair to those of us who are providing usefull edits without an account.

But don't delete what i put or else!!!! Wkc19 :) (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't own the article. If the content is not right for the article, it will be removed. Also, please don't threaten other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is just a minor closing scene for the fans to enjoy. There is nothing yet that confirms its importance to the movie overall. DisuseKid (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Zara's death

Yes, Zara was unimportant in the film and Obviously didn't do much but be the boy's babysitter, but she was killed during the pterosaur attack by being eaten by the Mosasaurus, you can't just dismiss it saying she didn't die or better yet NEVER happened!!! Because regardless if the character's role is big and small in any form of media, they need to have some mentioning what happened to them.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Because regardless if the character's role is big and small in any form of media, they need to have some mentioning what happened to them." This is utterly untrue. If the character has little to no importance to the overall plot, there is no reason to include their presence. If this were an IMDb synopsis, it would be perfectly appropriate, but our efforts are to summarize the film, not to recount every event that occurs in it. I strongly disagree that Zara is relevant enough to be mentioned at all. Sock (tock talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm usually pretty cut-throat with plot synopses (and editing in general), but I don't object to mentioning Zara. But she should be mentioned twice - there's no point mentioning her death if we don't introduce her beforehand. And it should be better written than "with Zara among those killed in the mayhem".

I don't feel strongly about this one, though. (What really baffles me is why I seem to be the only editor who thinks we should mention the kiss. I've given up re-adding it to the synopsis, but like I've said before, it's the pivotal moment of the romance subplot - to the point of cliche! - and I'm surprised it keeps being removed.) Popcornduff (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with PD's argument that if Zara is going to be mentioned she shouldn't be mentioned just to mention her death. That's more confusing than anything else assuming she wasn't introduced earlier in the summary. I also agree with Sock that Zara doesn't play enough of a role in the film that I particularly favor mentioning her at all, especially not if it's just to highlight that she dies later. DonIago (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, she only seemed to exist to draw some sort of reaction from audience through her death, and that's it. That's not noteworthy. DisuseKid (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the entire film exists to draw some sort of reaction from the audience... that's what it's for. Popcornduff (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

TBH, it is Ludicrous, I just don't understand why you continue dismissing this, and you IGNORED what I said I said I agreed that she didn't do ANYTHING in the film, but that doesn't mean you go and dismiss her death saying it's irrelevant, its like saying a few of the deaths in the previous Jurassic Park movies didn't happen, Jabba's death in Return of the Jedi never happened, or better yet Phil Coulson's death in The Avengers never happend, it's very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very Frustrating on how minor characters go and especially in regards to mid-credit and post-credit scenes for the most part. So complain and dismiss all you want nay-sayers but I don't agree with most of your thoughts and conclusions.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A lot of events that occur in a film need to be cut from the plot summary, especially when they are not crucial to the plot itself. One way to think of it is this: If Zara didn't die, would the plot have been altered in some way? In my opinion, it would not have, and therefore it can be left out. If you disagree, please describe why you think it's a crucial element. Also, you may want to have a look at WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM. We are attempting to keep the plot concise and its length between 400 and 700 words. Wikipedia is not the place to include every detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The plot summary exists to serve the rest of the article. If hers was a character getting a lot of attention in reliable secondary sources (like a bit player who "stole the show" getting a lot of focus in reviews), then she would warrant more than cursory mention (if any) in the the plot summary. Honestly, lots of 500 word plot summaries in the film project are still too long as far as what is needed to back up the rest of the article. Millahnna (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95 – The named people (keyword NAMED) who died in the Jurassic Park movies were all main or supporting characters who helped progress the plots of their respective movies. Jabba was keeping Leia a slave for the first part of the movie. Phil Coulson helped put the Avengers together, and his death inspired them to work together in the first place. And what did Zara do? Not much of anything, other than let the boys slip. Besides, in the second Jurassic Park, we have at least three characters who are named and were killed but were never mentioned in the Plot section itself, at least not by name: Dieter Stark, Ajay, and Carter. None of them really contributed anything significant to the plot other than dying, hence their absence. The same thing goes with Zara. The same goes for pretty much any other movie summary. I don't have any qualms with you disagreeing with the rest of us, but if your personal opinions are going to interfere with the presentation of a simple section of the article, then we obviously we will have a problem. DisuseKid (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just said it as a mere "what if" example, I'm not generalizing saying "Oh you are doing this" or "you are doing that" I just simply stated my opinion by saying a "what if", even though I forgot to put in the sentence. On top of that, it also applies to Mid-credit and post-credit scenes and it's disheartening seeing some of those movies scenes like "for instance" some of the Pixar and more recent Disney animated films have their Mid-credit and post-credit scenes removed because according to the editor "no relevance to the movie or plot". You know what, all I'm doing is "kicking a dead horse" here and overgeneralizing so I'm just going to leave it as that in regards to everything regarding on movie plotlines.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: There's nothing wrong with including content from mid-credit and post-credit scenes when they matter to the plot, as evident in quite a few Marvel film articles. However, when they have nothing to do with the plot, I think it's pretty clear they shouldn't be in a section entitled "plot summary". The links I posted above will take you to guidelines that explain a lot of this in more detail, so I strongly suggest you look at them. All we are doing here and in other film articles is adhering to their basic principles. If you disagree with any part of those guidelines, you'll want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, where it will get the attention of other editors involved in the project. That is the proper venue for changing/updating the WikiProject's guidelines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015

The article reads Box office sales of "$1,524 billion", but it should read "$1.524 billion."

Dklodowski (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for the tip! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Box office analysis

If anyone is interested in writing a Commercial analysis section for this article's Box office section, similar to the commercial analysis sections for the WP:Good articles Avatar (2009 film) and Frozen (2013 film), there is a lot of material out there on it; for example, this "‘Jurassic World': 5 Key Reasons It Was a Box Office Monster" Variety source or this "As 'Jurassic World' Tops 'Avengers,' Have Our Box Office Records Lost All Meaning?" Forbes source. Flyer22 (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Indominus rex

Shouldn't Indominus rex instead be rendered as "Indominus rex" seeing that it's not actually a valid scientific name? 65.96.242.22 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Are the italics really necessary for an animal that never existed? 2602:306:80E5:6970:389B:C213:C91:D4A (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In the context of the story, it "existed" and would be written in italics. Popcornduff (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As another example, Jurassic World, the park, doesn't exist either, but it is still capitalised as a Proper Noun because that's the convention for place names. Popcornduff (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What about when the article refers to the Indominus outside of the story's context? For example, the article refers to the animal by name in the Themes and Analysis section and in the Pre-Production section. In both sections, the animal is written in italics. Is this appropriate? Or would those mentionings technically be considered to be within the story's context? Just wondering. 2602:306:80E5:6970:E9E4:DFA7:D5A3:1C99 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose it would still be written in italics for the same reason we capitalize Jurassic World (the park, not the movie). Popcornduff (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I personally left it alone because I thought it would interfere with the quote. Versus001 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

View history

For some reason, I cannot enter it. I think the access button may be broken. Help, please? Versus001 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I had the same issue. I've reported at WP:VPT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Versus001 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Highest Grossing

We can't write that it is the highest grossing in the franchise due to it still losing to Jurassic Park by a few million if you account for inflation the original won $1,631,468,763 and Jurassic World only win $1,623,514,847 so I say we take that off until it wins the remaining $7 million, which at this slowing rate, I don't think it will Giggett (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's at least one (probably many) sources that call it the highest grossing. If you find a source that mentions the original having a higher gross after adjusting for inflation, I think that would be completely appropriate to add. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well no need, looks like I doubted the power of IMAX cus it just beated the original's $1.631 billion like it was nothing. Jurassic World is now the highest grossing in the franchise for sure now, both adjusted and unadjusted Giggett (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Update

JW is now only 1 million away from beating Titanic's domestic gross of $650 million. I think this article is gonna need some records updated soon Giggett (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Need a very Reliable Source for that - just having pulled down a very high quality theater "bootleg" of this clunker/stinker, that goes to show what a sad state the motion picture industry is in. I was never going to lay down cash for this . . . film . . . and was glad to see avoiding it was a very good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.181.235 (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well here is your reliable source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm and my bad it's still only 8 million away from becoming #2. I guess we have to wait a little bit longer Giggett (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

DVD/Blue Ray already out

I'm not sure if it's the case where you guys live, but in New Zealand the DVD came out already. I bought my copy yesterday. The article probably needs updating 203.173.185.85 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Casting order

I suggest that we order the cast in the order the main credits in the film does. It's like the opening credits but in this film it was at the end. Scream4man (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of the poster

I would like permission of the editors of the article and especially of those who uploaded the photo file (poster) - to be uploaded in an article for Jurassic World (as cover) in Bulgarian Wikipedia. NnelimM (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@NnelimM:: BG Wiki permits WP:FAIRUSE? (don't know if this is enough) If so, just save the image on your computer and upload it there with the proper rationales. igordebraga ≠ 22:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Record-breaking List

While I appreciate those details sorted in a table, is it necessary to clarify that all those were counted "during its theatrical run"? I heard of many predictions that the upcoming The Force Awakens would break all those records. If so, we'll have to clear up. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 16:01 on 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Box office records assume theatrical runs so adding that note is not necessary. Also there's no way The Force Awakens would break all those records when there are items such as June opening weekend or Universal Pictures opening weekend. If need be, a common footnote can be added for records that are subsequently broken by another film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I just saw the Avengers page saying "the third-highest-grossing film during its theatrical run" while it was actually the forth of all time. I don't prefer comparing a particular movie with another, especially when there's a main page of lists showing all those rankings. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 06:01 on 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's confusion with including secondary theatrical runs (Special edition, holiday or anniversary) or home media sales, then yes the note can be added. But for the table it should be fairly clear. If there's interest in noting whenever the record was subsequently broken, it can also be added as a column or an indent as with List of career achievements by Babe Ruth. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Force Awakens shattered the opening weekend record held by Jurassic World. The Force Awakens is now confirmed to have made $238 million opening weekend, a new box office record. $30 million more than Jurassic World made it's opening weekend. The Force Awakens made a total of $517 million worldwide, which trails Jurassic World however Jurassic World had the benefit of opening in China during it's first weekend. The Force Awakens will not open in China until January 9, 2016. It also had the largest Thursday and Friday openings ever and largest openings in IMAX. Jason1978 03:20 on 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jason1978: I personally disagree with some news writers who keep emphasizing the "advantage" brought by China to opening-weekend performance. Jurassic World didn't open in Japan during its first weekend, which is also the time of 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea as well. So, would these affect its box office performance? As far as I know, Japan is a big market for Star Wars franchise as seen from previous revenue while China is not (the first trilogy wasn't even released there) and such delay may allow time to introduce further the franchise to the people there (mostly by Disney's extensive advertising campaign). Each movie has its own marketing strategy or difficulties and we just present the facts and leave all those "interpretations" to readers themselves. By the way, the intro simply says "a record-breaking opening weekend" instead of "the biggest opening weekend ever", just like the title of the table which is "Box office records set by Jurassic World". It did set those records at the time. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 17:37 on 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put in a dagger footnote for records that were subsequently broken by the Star Wars film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding a footnote is more reasonable than what Josephlalrinhlua786 did, whose act suggested that this page he co-wrote was created for no reason but to be removed in the future. The usefulness of past tense is to keep the stability so that we won't have to delete or add newer holder(s) of each item one by one on all pages of films released previously in the future as more and more movies break or re-break another's record(s). As I said before, the title of the table is "...set by Jurassic World" which doesn't indicate that those are permanently held. Jurassic World did set those thresholds at the time and they're it's milestones. I knew this "war" would happen between fans and that's why I still don't prefer mentioning the name of a particular movie. Simply adding a note to remind readers that those records are "breakable" is well enough. Who knows how many will..."smash" (as fans and news writers like to use) those numbers in the upcoming future. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 07:23 on 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I modified the table, sorting similar items for clearer presentation. I also added a note to remind readers that those were set during its theatrical run only (as did in the intro. of the Avengers page). ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 13:11 on 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I think "set" is good to indicate that they are breakable, and if you still want the daggers to show which ones were indeed broken that's fine too. Thanks for condensing the list; it should draw less attention than the previous too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

Under Reception - Critical Response, He felt that the film was not terribly scary, and was more of a PG than R, praised the CGI and score, ....

Should probably state "... was more of a PG than a PG-13 ..." as the movie IS rated PG-13.

Mikesn5va (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: McCarthy's review actually says "closer to PG than R", which was presumably just another way to say it wasn't scary, but as it obviously can be confusing, have just removed it. Cannolis (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

'Racist' Lines

Clearly an example of finding a problem that isn't 'there' and the 'PC' climate of today. Homonyms are now attacked, purely in ignorance. Just how 'big' was this 'controversy', and is it worth mentioning? Today, somebody will find anything 'offensive' or 'racist'; at what level or degree is this a serious concern? 66.81.251.86 (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the "sexist" controversy was much bigger than this made up racist controversy.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I so completely concur. And I digress: this is EXACTLY why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously anymore; because of the inflammatory, incendiary and politically incorrect NONSENSE that it allows on its front pages. It's not racist it's nitpicking. If one is offended another can be counter-offended.shyjayb 03:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Years passed since the events of the third film

Regarding recent edits by 72.132.220.151: Trevorrow only specified that the film is set 22 years after the first film. Jurassic World makes no mention of how many years have passed since the events of the second and third films. Stating that Jurassic World takes place 14 years after Jurassic Park III seems like speculation based on the release dates of the two films. Thus, I feel that it would only be accurate to say that this film was released 14 years after the third film. Also, the edits made it sound like Jurassic Park III was set on Isla Nublar, which is inaccurate.  AJFU  (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The 22 years is also indicated by the official plot summary. [1] so yes, I agree it doesn't try to place the time in the second or third films in the series. And it does not pinpoint a specific year in the future for List of films set in the future kind of lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@AJFU, AngusWOOF: Need more clarification here... So there's obviously still a lot of edits pouring in attempting to change from 22 to 14 back to 22. First of all, aside from Trevorrow's comments that it takes place 22 years later, is this ever mentioned directly in the film? If not, then it shouldn't be mentioned at all in the plot summary. Only details gathered from watching the film should be here. As for the lead, it would make sense to include "takes place" 22 years later, but "released" 14 years after Jurassic Park III is unnecessary. Readers can deduce that for themselves. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not only the tweet. It is in the press kit. [2] 14 would be synthesis/original research based off the third film. The 22 years is based off the actual summary. You can also quote the newspaper article in my previous post as that is a reliable secondary source and would be preferred over the primary even though it quotes the primary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear... I do not support mentioning 14 anywhere in the article. It is true that the Jurassic World film was released to the public 14 years after Jurassic Park III, but we don't need to point that out in the article. As for the story taking place 22 years later, I do believe that can be mentioned, but not in the plot summary. Details that are revealed outside of the film (as in this case) should not be in this section. I think you agree, but it wasn't clear. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. As far as I can remember, the film itself does not specify the exact time passed since the first film. I guess it's just always been left there in the plot section because of Trevorrow's comment, but I concur that the plot section should only include what is mentioned in the film. Also, when I wrote "it would only be accurate to say that this film was released 14 years after the third film", I did not mean to suggest that we should actually include a mention of the 14-year difference between the release dates of the two films. I only meant to convey that the 14-year difference is the time passed between the release dates, and not the time passed between the events of the two films. I apologize if that was unclear before.  AJFU  (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't need to be mentioned in the Plot section itself if the year range is not presented in the film. Can anyone confirm whether 22 years was used in the film's trailers? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jurassic World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010620182549/http://www.dansjp3page.com/index2.asp to http://www.dansjp3page.com/index2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zap2it.com/movies/features/profiles/story/0%2C1259%2C---7743%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0%2C6115%2C167997~1~0~learnaboutjurassicpark%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1019220329%2C75782%2C
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1050297871%2C28882%2C
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-07%2F16%2F12.00.film
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews%2F2003%2F10%2F12%2Fbuild%2Flocal%2F45-horner.inc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/8689803/Sam-Neils-vintage-year
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007232315/https://www.imax.com/corporate/press-releases/ to https://www.imax.com/corporate/press-releases/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Jurassic World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://indd.adobe.com/view/87976431-f650-4be0-a9c3-392d676b5514
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010413024442/http://www.dansjp3page.com/oldnews22.asp to http://www.dansjp3page.com/oldnews22.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010716223215/http://www.dansjp3page.com/neill-interview.asp to http://dansjp3page.com/neill-interview.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/885/sequel-rumours-galore
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810200257/http://collider.com/movie/article.asp/aid/4039/tcid/1 to http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/4039/tcid/1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116125816/http://screenrant.com/joe-johnston-jurassic-park-4-captain-america-director-rothc-123898/ to http://screenrant.com/joe-johnston-jurassic-park-4-captain-america-director-rothc-123898
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208121351/http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Sections/ONFILM/ONFILM_Interview_John_Schwartzman_ASC.htm to http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Sections/ONFILM/ONFILM_Interview_John_Schwartzman_ASC.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315034940/http://www.abplive.in/video/video_movies/2014/03/12/article276317.ece/Cricket%C2%A0ka%C2%A0decline%C2%A0hona-bhi-chahiye-it-is-a-waste-of-time-Irrfan-Khan to http://www.abplive.in/video/video_movies/2014/03/12/article276317.ece/Cricket%C2%A0ka%C2%A0decline%C2%A0hona-bhi-chahiye-it-is-a-waste-of-time-Irrfan-Khan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091713/http://jurassicworld.org/index.php?id=166 to http://jurassicworld.org/index.php?id=166
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528034819/http://www.scified.com/site/jurassicworld/colin-trevorrow-confirms-animatronic-dinosaurs--sequels-for-jurassic-world to http://www.scified.com/site/jurassicworld/colin-trevorrow-confirms-animatronic-dinosaurs--sequels-for-jurassic-world
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617040853/http://www.newsexprezz.com/jurassic-world-crossed-511-8-million-in-first-weekend-globally-011797/ to http://www.newsexprezz.com/jurassic-world-crossed-511-8-million-in-first-weekend-globally-011797/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622202508/http://www.reald.com/ir/news-and-events to http://www.reald.com/ir/news-and-events
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/10/us/ap-us-film-review-jurassic-world.html?_r=0&referrer=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Redundant comparisons Pt. II

With Jurassic World being the 4th highest grossing film in all of the world and time, there is not much it can be compared to. Unless Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars: The Force Awakens is brought up, Jurassic World's success, as a whole need not be diluted in redundant comparisons, as each film is monumentally different in its own right. Marcell D. Murray (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jurassic World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://blog.mtv.com/2008/10/20/jeff-goldblum-mulls-jurassic-park-4-open-to-possible-return/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221213927/http://www.honolulupulse.com/2014/02/outtakes-online-jurassic-world/ to http://www.honolulupulse.com/2014/02/outtakes-online-jurassic-world/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/07/18/friday-box-office-jurassic-world-tops-600m-terminator-tumbles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Notes in record box

Is it a good idea to have notes which are already small in a box which makes text even smaller?★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No mention of critical response in lead?

The sequel Fallen Kingdom has a critical response in the lead section. Why not this? Wolcott (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to add one! DonIago (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Music credits

Williams's original theme was used as a leitmotif. But Giacchino has officially received solo credit for the score. Check the end credits. Williams is given separate credit for the JP theme. The film composer should receive solo credit. For instance, Monty Norman is not always co-credited in Bond movies. The film's respective composer (Barry, Arnold or Newman) gets solo credit! Thus Giacchino gets solo credit here and Williams shall get a separate mention in the soundtrack section for his iconic theme.103.253.171.217 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed text

Text below removed from the article and posted here in case its removal breaks any refs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Development

• 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 June 2009, Marshall said the film did not have a story.
• Spielberg had hoped to have a writer working on a full screenplay for Jurassic Park IV by the time he started filming his other project, Lincoln, in October 2011, with the hope that the script would be finished by the time Lincoln was finished. However, he and Kennedy felt that neither of Protosevich's treatments consisted of the right story for a fourth film.

Pre-production

• As Kennedy prepared Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Brad Bird—who wanted to work on the film but was busy with Tomorrowland—suggested she employ director Colin Trevorrow to work as a stand-in during the pre-production of Star Wars. This instigated Kennedy and Marshall to watch Trevorrow's first film, Safety Not Guaranteed. Marshall was impressed by the film, and at the end of February 2013, he arranged a meeting between himself, Trevorrow and Spielberg regarding the Jurassic Park job.
• Trevorrow had been a fan of the series since he saw the original film during its theatrical release.

References