Log in to unlock your profile!
Jurassic World 2

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (Jurassic World 2)

Jurassic World 2

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom arrives in:

Do The Lost World & Jurassic Park III still work with Jurassic World?

Do The Lost World & Jurassic Park III still work with Jurassic World?

G. H. (Gman)

Admin

302

Posted Feb-13-2016 9:27 PM

I've been rewatching the entire Jurassic Park series lately and wrapped up The Lost World tonight. (Still a wonderful move and still my #2 in the franchise.)

Now lets keep in mind that in April of 2015, Yahoo Movies reported that Colin Trevorrow's Jurassic World was more of a direct sequel to the original film and didn't acknowledge the events in the sequels. This same article tries to clarify that The Lost World and Jurassic Park III haven't been pulled from the continuity, they simply aren't referenced in Jurassic World. The mention is still vague. Here's the short excerpt from Yahoo news:

"According to Trevorrow, the previous sequels aren’t being written out of continuity so much as placed to the side, as they both unfolded on a different island." - Source

So lets go ahead and assume that Jurassic World's universe includes the events of The Lost World and Jurassic Park III, regardless of the movie's philosophy toward them. Other than the logic flaw of okaying a third attempt at a dinosaur theme park, how are some of these animals still alive? How are some of the ruins of the original park still standing?

It's heavily suggested in The Lost World that Ludlow and InGen covered up Isla Sorna and the animals on the original island either died or were slaughtered. The original Lost World VHS summary reads, "The dinosaurs are destroyed, the park is dismantled and the island is indefinitely closed for the public..." 

While I can't consider a VHS summary cannonical it does seem to hint at the deleted scene in The Lost World where Ludlow is listing the money InGen has thrown down to keep the island under lock and key. In this cut footage Ludlow mentions "biological" evidence being destroyed--Whether he's refering to dinosaurs or other biological experiments is unknown. However, I think it's logical to assume that killing the dinosaurs would have been an obvious step in covering their tracks.

Then of course there's the curious line John Hammond utters in the theatrical version of the The Lost World, "Thank God for Site B." Why would he be so relieved about it unless everything on Nublar were destroyed? Why not send a team to Nublar if the animals did survive? Or two teams on both islands?

Or am I looking at this wrong? Rexy's survival seems to indicate that she, among others, might have been re-captured for Jurassic World's rise. Is it possible she's one of the few and maybe only survivor of InGen's purging? Even if she did find a way to allude them, what kind of food source could have possibly sustained her?

While I understand Trevorrow's desire to pay greater homage to the original movie instead of the sequels, pushing them "to the side" just because they take place on a different island ignores some greater parts of the mythology--Especially if they are still to be considered cannon. It makes more sense if The Lost World and Jurassic Park III are not cannon, but that has never been confirmed. Nor do I think those two films should be ignored as neither merit a badge of dishonor so great as to be removed from the mythology.

12 Responses to Do The Lost World & Jurassic Park III still work with Jurassic World?

jmcharries

Feb-14-2016 4:59 PM

Despite all of the bad events that ended up happening, the events in Jurassic Park were the "noblest" in that they were trying to create a new park unlike any ever seen. The events in The Lost World were more internal (aside from t-rex in San Francisco) as they were basically poaching on the island and the events of Part 3 were illegal trespassers to the island - no reason at all to acknowledge that part of history.

G. H. (Gman)

Feb-15-2016 6:01 AM

The question isn't whether or not it was okay to acknowledge the history of the two films. The question is does it still work cannoncially with the holes I specified in the original post. The events suggested in specific scenes in The Lost World hint that the facilities and animals from the first movie were intentionally destroyed.

Raptor-401

Feb-18-2016 4:41 PM

I feel like they were focusing too much on throwing in references to Jurassic Park than to make sure the sequels fit in the JP canon. How I think the dinosaurs are still there is that the dinosaurs began to migrate freely to neighboring islands, and if InGen did attempt to destroy the dinosaurs, they didn't destroy all of them (including Rexy) and the dinosaurs just kept on breeding. If Rexy needed more food perhaps all she did was look for more in different islands for a while. Maybe InGen failed in trying to destroy the dinosaurs.

IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!

G. H. (Gman)

Feb-18-2016 5:49 PM

It's never outright stated InGen did try to destroy the Dinosaurs--The wording makes it pretty vague, but its certainly insinuated that they were trying to cover their tracks. Due to the loose wording in the final cut of The Lost World, I suppose we could let it slide.

As for Rexy, how would she be able to get from one island to another?

Raptor-401

Feb-18-2016 6:11 PM

I usually imagien they try to destroy the dinosaurs because of the book, but I forget in the movie it's never implied they destroy the dinosaurs. Maybe they just focused on just getting rid of evidence of the existence of the park? Like just covering up the deaths and keeping relatives quiet, paying local governments to keep things quiet, and other measures.

And the islands in Jurassic Park are fictional, but based off of real islands by Costa Rica, so maybe it's possible the easily walk from one island to another during a specific time fo the year? It's far fetched, but maybe it's plausible. Also maybe InGen was ste only on a specific part of the island, and Rexy happened to be in another part of the island? Maybe when they tried to kill Rexy, Rexy ended up killing them and InGen just covered up that?

Things like this probably will never be solved or really answered, and I think it's just sfafe to imagine any number of things could have happened between films that wasn't discussed.

IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!

G. H. (Gman)

Feb-18-2016 8:46 PM

According to Hammond, Isla Sorna in the film was 50-80 miles off of Isla Nublar. The animals were transported by boat from Site B. I don't think seasonal changes would have made 50-80 miles of ocean sink any lower.

And it is "implied" that the dinosaurs were destroyed, but not explicitly stated. I can certainly suspend disbelief that events just happened to work in favor of the direction the story ultimately took, but Jurassic World does leave a lot of gaping holes open.

Durp004

Feb-19-2016 6:55 AM

I think it's pretty clear Ingen wiped out the park and dinosaurs after Jurassic Park due to the dialogue in 2, but also the fact that 3 takes place on Isla Sorna. There's no way that kid and his mom's "friend" would go parasailing to see dinsaurs at Isla Sorna if Isla Nublar the island of Jurassic Park would have housed dinosaurs.This wouldn't be such an inconsistancy if they would have just said the t rex was one of the mates from 2, or a new one altogether, rather than try to play on nostalgia, but then again cinema did show us last year nostalgia works over the deeper aspects of cannon.

Raptor-401

Feb-19-2016 4:10 PM

@Gman- I meant to imply Rexy could have moved to a very clsoe island not mentioned in JP, after all The Lost World mention there's five islands, and since it's a fictional set of island, we don't know the exact map unless they release a full map of all the islands.

 

@Durp- I don't think they tried to wipe out everything. I mean it would just be easier to bribe the government rather than to focus on destroying the whole island and dinosaurs, not to mention InGen most likely guessed dinosaurs made it to the mainland (well not in the movie, it's focused on in the book and from how I see it the Jurassic World sequels better use that as a plot point, since it's a good one) it would seem kind of pointless to destroy dinosaurs on one island.

It would be easy to just egt rid of files, keep certain people quiet, and bribe local governments, and keep them to keep locals quiet and cover up any attacks. Also in the movie I forgot to state this, InGen is only focused on covering up the theme park and the accident- they're still focused on using the dinosaurs for profit. Why would they destroy the dinosaurs when they coudl come back and get more of them if they ever needed to?

And your point about the kid and the mom's friend doesn't make sense, there could be a number of simple explanations for that. Maybe it was cheaper for the friend to go to that island, maybe Isla Sorna is said to be prettier and be safer by the locals, maybe just simply chose Isla Sorna rather than Isla Nublar. It's vacation, they'll just choose whatever they think would be better.

But it is true nostalgia is being way too focused on. I've stated before I don't liek Star Wars, but I woudl still watch the new one if I didn't hear all the details of how similar it is to the first one. Like Hollywood, we get it, we're because of that first movie, there is nothign wrong off of basing off a plot of the first movie, but why copy all the scenes just to five me a moment of "nostalgia" I'll only enjoy for the first time?

 

^I apologize for any typoes I may have made.

IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!

G. H. (Gman)

Feb-19-2016 4:22 PM

But if InGen was going to grab dinosaurs why didn't they bother with Nublar if they were still alive? And as I pointed out, the deleted scenes give more credence to the idea that "biological" destruction was in the cards.

But to be fair to both sides of the argument, nothing is explicitly stated on film. Just hinted at. Even in Jurassic World, no one character says the T-Rex is the same one from the original park. Only the hard core fans tend to know that little nugget due to interviews and reading websites.

Some of these plotholes could technically be subverted by the simple fact that they're handled in such a vague way.

Durp004

Feb-20-2016 4:47 AM

Actually Raptor-401 the fact they went to Isla Sorna does make sense and adds credence to the fact Nublar didn't house dinosaurs.

 

1. The guy driving the boat in Jurassic Park 2 makes it very clear that locals stay away from the island, I think the name the 5 deaths is attached to it in some way. Either way the idea that the locals would change their mind about this and recommend it as an attraction over the other island is a much further stretch than the idea the other island just didn't have dinosaurs anymore.

2. John Hammond says at the end of two that they could isolate and preserve the island( does he ever mention anything indicating Nublar should also be preserved I don't remember but doubt it) it's even a no fly zone. This means at the very least you are breaking some level of laws to go here for this trip, suddenly Isla Sorna doesn't seem like a great place to go, much less if Isla Nublar was also available in any way.

3. Not sure about the credence of this since I just looked it up out of curiousity but according to the wiki and logically likely, Isla Sorna is further away from Costa Rica than Isla Nublar making the trip more convenient to go in that direction.

 

You seem to be overrating how easy it would be to keep things quiet. At the beginning of Jurassic Park one worker was killed and the park is put on hold to make sure it's safe, then you have how many casualties and you think they could just push it under the rug, no chances are Ingen would want to clean their hands of the mess to the public by destroying everything on it. Notice how Jurassic Park 2 ended with Hammond making a plea to isolate, not destroy Isla Sorna? Why did he not do this after the first movie, why even state that the animals should be left alone if the other island had gone housing dinosaurs and not been touched since the original movie.

 

 

Raptor-401

Feb-20-2016 4:24 PM

@Gman- Well maybe that's why they were deleted. They needed to make the run time a certain part, and decided to erase parts that they didn't think would fit in the film canon. Whenever I rewatch The Lost World, the deleted scenes are never included with the movie itself, I have to watch them seperately. And out of curiousity I watched it on TV to see if the deleted scenes would be included, and they were not. I mention this because I think it just means those scenes were deleted maybe because the makers just didn't want as part of the film canon, so deleted scenes are shown with the 'official' film cut.

Well with the scars and the way they hyped the T-Rex, it has to be Rexy.

It is put out vaguely, which is why there really isn't a "right" side of the argument.

@Durp- You're right, Isla Nublar is logically closer to Costa Rica than Isla Sorna. But then again, it's Jurassic Park 3, I mean I like it but the movie didn't really focus on handling things logically. There's some specific example, but I don't want to bring them up if you know what I'm talking about. Besides that, there's no way the Spinosaurs would break through that metal fence without any injuries or wounds. My point is the movie doesn't really focus on being logical. From Dr. Grant's character to the plot of the film, it's not too logical or consistent. I'm not saying The Lost World is flawless, but it did do a much better job than Jurassic Park 3.

But personally I think it would be easy to keep things quiet for a while until it didn't matter. You said it yourself, people learn to stay off the islands. And they could just put more enforcement to keep people from trying to investigate the island. And there were many times in history when huge and sometimes horrible things were kept a secret. There was The Holocaust, they managed to keep that a secret for almost 10 years, even though rumors were spread. Maybe it wouldn't be so hard to cover up deaths, accidents, and an island up.

But like Gman said, it's handled vaguely. Not really much to go on.

IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!

x_paden_x

Feb-20-2016 10:31 PM

Lets remember that on the Masrani Website, That it does mention they aquired BOTH sites when the purchased Ingen. They also mentioned that they had begun building procedures in the late nineties with clean up of Site A starting in 1994 or 95, (its been awhile since i visited the site) Dr. Wu was in charge of these clean ups. Now, let us consider that Dr.Wu was a little twisted with his own vision of the greater good here.

 

Directing our attention away from the fact that Ingen was in operation on Site A during the events of TLW, We need to remember the JW was ending its final years of construction when Dr Grant was stranded on Sorna. 

 

Why wasnt there any ingen influence on Sorna in 2001? Well, because the directors and writers didn't plan for any of this extra stuff. But We can make up canon fodder here outof what we've got. 

 

Hammond requested that Site B be left as a Biological Preserve, where these animals can grow and florish all on their own. So, Ingen would've most likely have kept little to no real stations or operations there. But perhaps maybe the sign of so much abandoned equipment suggests they still monitor the site but don't visit it. Think national park, except dinosaurs and restritced to everyone and not a national park. 

 

Now Ellie's sentiment of sending the US navy to rescue grant and them can be interpreted just as that. HOWEVER, Remember Ingen was a couple dozen miles away constructing. They most likely were monitoring the situation on Site B with what relays still are standing after Ingen's last excursion on the island. 

 

So we could deduce that The Marines Arrival on Site B, wasn't infact Ellies doing, but actually Ingens. Think about it, the movie takes place over the span of two days or so... it roughly would take a carrier group a day or so to actually get them over there, and I'd imagine it would take maybe that time for Ingens lawyers and such to convince them to go over. 

 

Or maybe it's a favour on Masrani's behalf for what Military development they do for the military. 

 

So, Site B does fit into Canon. Albiet, not nicely, But it does fit. 

 

Now we need answers to why rexy survived.

 

Well, Rexy most likely was recaptured. During TLW they talk about Biological Asset contaiment/elimination, right? Well, It doesn't quite need to refer to the animals. Remember that they had a lot of other Biological assets, like the Embryos and such. You'd want some things like that destroyed.

 

Or maybe They did exterminate several species. Recall that some of the original species don't make an appearance. Such as any or all of the breeding species would be eliminated and replaced with a new version of stock. (As the Book references)

 

Going back to Site B. Remember that they didn't abandon Site B until they knew Site A was completely lost. There's a year or a bit in there where Site B still had workers on it. Spino Could've been a small Side Project produced during this time. 

 

Like I said, We can draw explanation and reasons and such to make everything fit canon, but its not going to fit nicely. 

 

So now we need to think about what Ingen is doing on Site B. Or what they're doing now. Perhaps nothing. 

 

A lot of questions. I feel Colin just neglecting them doesn't properly deal with them. They are still franchise and Canon as it stands. 

Life cannot be contained, it breaks walls, crashes through barriers sometimes painfully, but uh... Life uh, finds a way

Sign in to add a reply to this topic!

Welcome to the fan website & forum! Don't be a lurker, consider joining our community of like-minded Jurassic Park / Jurassic World movie fans. By signing up you can comment on news articles, start your own forum topics, upload images and even win cool prizes! Over fans have already signed up!

Member
Lord Tyrannos started a new discussion: Top 10 Favourite Dinosaurs
Member
Lord Tyrannos started a new discussion: Isla Nublar: Extinction

will act as a sequel to 2015's Jurassic World. JurassicWorld2Movie.com is an information resource for fans looking to learn more about the upcoming film . Providing the latest official and accurate information on , this website contains links to every set video, viral video, commercial, trailer, poster, movie still and screenshot available. This site is an extension of the Jurassic World / Jurassic Park Fandom on Scified - a central hub for fans of Jurassic Park looking to stay up-to-date on the latest news. Images used are property of their respective owners. and its associated names, logos and images are property of and are in no way owned by Scified and its related entities. This is a fan-created website for the purpose of informing and exciting fans for 's release. If you have any questions about this site, its content or the Scified Network in general, feel free to contact Scified directly.

Your account has not yet been verified. Please check your email for the verification link to begin posting.

Please review our rules before sharing content

Use Your E-Mail:


Password:


Stay Logged In

Content Policies & Legal Disclaimers