Creation is an act of sheer will. Next time it will be flawless...(est. 2016)
 
Jurassic Mainframe NewsHomeCalendarAbout UsJurassic-PediaFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?

Go down 
AuthorMessage
JannToshj
Embryo
Embryo
avatar

Posts : 5
Points : 79
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2018-06-04

PostSubject: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:33 pm

It's nice fan service to have her back but I don't see why it is important to have her be the only one and not have any others like the Rex family from TLW?


in fact having so little dinosaurs honestly makes the ending of FK a little hollow. That small amount of dinos likely would prevent no threat to us and would be disposed of pretty quick
Back to top Go down
View user profile
#TRexSpinorematch
Parasaurolophus
Parasaurolophus
avatar

Posts : 299
Points : 764
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2017-05-28

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:10 pm

I don't know why but I do know that a lot of fans would like to see the family from The Lost World.

_______________
Link to the T Rex Spinosaurus rematch in Jurassic World 3 petition that Colin Trevorrow noted. We hope everyone joins and help us share it.

https://www.facebook.com/Petition-to-have-a-T-Rex-Spinosaurus-rematch-in-Jurassic-World-2-194141920665797/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tyrant Lizard
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 1157
Points : 2604
Reputation : 89
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : Over there

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:27 pm

I imagine that it's to up the stakes for this series of movies. If there's a flourishing ecosystem on Sorna, complete with a T.rex family, the fate of one old Rex isn't nearly as important as it is knowing that she's the last of her kind.

Not saying I agree with wiping out the Sorna population, just stating what the explanation likely is.

_______________
Dinosaurs still rule the earth

Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Mr. Robustus
Compsognathus
Compsognathus
avatar

Posts : 105
Points : 193
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2018-05-30
Location : San Dromaeo

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:48 am

The T. rex is the series mascot, so having only one in the new movies makes it more special and recognizable. It also kind of makes it more of a character in its own right: the old, lone, unchallenged ruler of the island (instead of random T. rex #4 of 9).

If there were an indeterminate number of T. rex in these new movies, every time the audience saw a T. rex, they would be like "oh, it's a T. rex", instead of "oh, it's THE T. rex".

_______________
"In the end, it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex."

"Try to imagine yourself in the Late Quaternary. You get your first look at this six-foot Psittacosaurus as you enter a city. You stay still, because you think that maybe its visual acuity is based on movement. Maybe it's not all that bright. But no... not Homo sapiens. You stare at it, and it stares right back at you. And that's when it starts shooting you with this... THE GUN!" - Dr. Mongoliensis
Back to top Go down
View user profile
JurassicJ
Embryo
Embryo
avatar

Posts : 16
Points : 73
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-06-28

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:24 am

Many things that have so far been wasted - seeing the Rex family from Sorna, Isla Sorna, Lewis Dodgson and Biosyn, Dilophosaurus, Spinosaurus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 4241
Points : 5219
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2016-06-08
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:36 am

@JurassicJ wrote:
Many things that have so far been wasted - seeing the Rex family from Sorna, Isla Sorna, Lewis Dodgson and Biosyn, Dilophosaurus, Spinosaurus

Not to mention the chance of seeing new dinosaurs-preferably more accurate ones-on the new islands. I'm not against keeping most of the old ones as is, but I would have liked to seen more new dinosaurs on the other islands.

_______________
The undisputed dominant predator of Jurassic Mainframe.

If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree. Michael Crichton




If you're concerned about where this franchise is headed, then please join us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Spinosaur4.4
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 1362
Points : 2221
Reputation : 29
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : My cubby room aka My world

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:15 pm

Fanservice. Never liked that they made Rexy a character. I want a new Tyrannosaur.

_______________
"Chaos theory is a pseudoscience you asshole" - Headcanon line from Sickle_Claw

Former JPL member, Spinosaur4.4.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
CT-1138
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
avatar

Posts : 883
Points : 3540
Reputation : 59
Join date : 2012-04-06
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:49 pm

Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

_______________
SOMETHING HAS SURVIVED
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://abekowalski.deviantart.com/
1morey
Ceratosaurus
Ceratosaurus
avatar

Posts : 188
Points : 1064
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2016-06-08
Location : Pennsylvania

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:18 pm

@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

But Isla Sorna's stock of dinosaurs (at least what is left of them), were relocated to Isla Nublar. And it's already been stated that Isla Nublar prior to Mt. Sibo's eruption was the home of the last living dinosaurs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Mr. Robustus
Compsognathus
Compsognathus
avatar

Posts : 105
Points : 193
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2018-05-30
Location : San Dromaeo

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:21 pm

@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

According to the DPG, all the Sorna dinosaurs were transported to Isla Nublar prior to the events of Jurassic World. The undisclosed number of T. rex, raptors and the Spinosaurus died from plot convenience.

_______________
"In the end, it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex."

"Try to imagine yourself in the Late Quaternary. You get your first look at this six-foot Psittacosaurus as you enter a city. You stay still, because you think that maybe its visual acuity is based on movement. Maybe it's not all that bright. But no... not Homo sapiens. You stare at it, and it stares right back at you. And that's when it starts shooting you with this... THE GUN!" - Dr. Mongoliensis
Back to top Go down
View user profile
#TRexSpinorematch
Parasaurolophus
Parasaurolophus
avatar

Posts : 299
Points : 764
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2017-05-28

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:32 pm

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
The T. rex is the series mascot, so having only one in the new movies makes it more special and recognizable. It also kind of makes it more of a character in its own right: the old, lone, unchallenged ruler of the island (instead of random T. rex #4 of 9).

If there were an indeterminate number of T. rex in these new movies, every time the audience saw a T. rex, they would be like "oh, it's a T. rex", instead of "oh, it's THE T. rex".

But from what I have seen, the general public and casual moviegoers don't have a clue they are watching the same T Rex from the original. They don't care for that either. They just want to see T Rex action.

_______________
Link to the T Rex Spinosaurus rematch in Jurassic World 3 petition that Colin Trevorrow noted. We hope everyone joins and help us share it.

https://www.facebook.com/Petition-to-have-a-T-Rex-Spinosaurus-rematch-in-Jurassic-World-2-194141920665797/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
1morey
Ceratosaurus
Ceratosaurus
avatar

Posts : 188
Points : 1064
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2016-06-08
Location : Pennsylvania

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:28 am

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:
@Mr. Robustus wrote:
The T. rex is the series mascot, so having only one in the new movies makes it more special and recognizable. It also kind of makes it more of a character in its own right: the old, lone, unchallenged ruler of the island (instead of random T. rex #4 of 9).

If there were an indeterminate number of T. rex in these new movies, every time the audience saw a T. rex, they would be like "oh, it's a T. rex", instead of "oh, it's THE T. rex".

But from what I have seen, the general public and casual moviegoers don't have a clue they are watching the same T Rex from the original. They don't care for that either. They just want to see T Rex action.

I have not really gotten that, since a lot of comments on any Jurassic Park-related material identifies her as Rexy.

So, if anything the general public recognizes her as being the same from the original film.

As for SUPER casual audiences, then yeah, they probably wouldn't get the connection.

It's the same as the whole Isla Sorna/Isla Nublar thing. A lot of people felt that most people wouldn't have realized they are two separate islands, and that they made it convoluted. The distinction that they were separate islands was made in BOTH The Lost World and JP III.

"Okay, so there's another island with dinosaurs on it -no fences this time- and you want to send people in, very few people, on the ground, right?"

"You mean there are two islands with dinosaurs on them?"

Like, unless you're a person who watches a movie just to pass time, this is not a confusing matter.

I think this is also partly why shared universes and canonicity are becoming more prevalent in films nowadays (mainly in action, adventure, sci-fi, and horror genres), because people want to see film series that maintain some sense of flow and logic from one installment to the next.

The downside, is when you have multiple timelines, (see: Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Godzilla)

Granted continuity errors will still exist, because changes can and will be made to fit the needs of the story.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
1morey
Ceratosaurus
Ceratosaurus
avatar

Posts : 188
Points : 1064
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2016-06-08
Location : Pennsylvania

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:32 am

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

According to the DPG, all the Sorna dinosaurs were transported to Isla Nublar prior to the events of Jurassic World. The undisclosed number of T. rex, raptors and the Spinosaurus died from plot convenience.

True. Though it is implied the raptors from Sorna were used for early stages of the IBRIS project before they started breeding new specimens, and the Spinosaurus was relocated.

We don't have any population estimates for Sorna from 1997-2004, but I'm led to believe that since there was an ecological collapse, many of the dinosaur populations were reduced. I think that the rex from JP III was one of the last remaining on Sorna, if not THE last.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Mr. Robustus
Compsognathus
Compsognathus
avatar

Posts : 105
Points : 193
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2018-05-30
Location : San Dromaeo

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:36 am

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:
@Mr. Robustus wrote:
The T. rex is the series mascot, so having only one in the new movies makes it more special and recognizable. It also kind of makes it more of a character in its own right: the old, lone, unchallenged ruler of the island (instead of random T. rex #4 of 9).

If there were an indeterminate number of T. rex in these new movies, every time the audience saw a T. rex, they would be like "oh, it's a T. rex", instead of "oh, it's THE T. rex".

But from what I have seen, the general public and casual moviegoers don't have a clue they are watching the same T Rex from the original. They don't care for that either. They just want to see T Rex action.

Even if they don't make the connection with the first movie, most people can still recognize that there's only one - brown and scarred - T. rex in the JW movies. So whenever the T. rex appears, even the general audience can see that it's always the same individual, instead of a random one in an island with many.

_______________
"In the end, it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex."

"Try to imagine yourself in the Late Quaternary. You get your first look at this six-foot Psittacosaurus as you enter a city. You stay still, because you think that maybe its visual acuity is based on movement. Maybe it's not all that bright. But no... not Homo sapiens. You stare at it, and it stares right back at you. And that's when it starts shooting you with this... THE GUN!" - Dr. Mongoliensis
Back to top Go down
View user profile
#TRexSpinorematch
Parasaurolophus
Parasaurolophus
avatar

Posts : 299
Points : 764
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2017-05-28

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Sun Jul 22, 2018 2:02 am

@1morey wrote:
#TRexSpinorematch wrote:
@Mr. Robustus wrote:
The T. rex is the series mascot, so having only one in the new movies makes it more special and recognizable. It also kind of makes it more of a character in its own right: the old, lone, unchallenged ruler of the island (instead of random T. rex #4 of 9).

If there were an indeterminate number of T. rex in these new movies, every time the audience saw a T. rex, they would be like "oh, it's a T. rex", instead of "oh, it's THE T. rex".

But from what I have seen, the general public and casual moviegoers don't have a clue they are watching the same T Rex from the original. They don't care for that either. They just want to see T Rex action.

I have not really gotten that, since a lot of comments on any Jurassic Park-related material identifies her as Rexy.

So, if anything the general public recognizes her as being the same from the original film.

As for SUPER casual audiences, then yeah, they probably wouldn't get the connection.

It's the same as the whole Isla Sorna/Isla Nublar thing. A lot of people felt that most people wouldn't have realized they are two separate islands, and that they made it convoluted. The distinction that they were separate islands was made in BOTH The Lost World and JP III.

"Okay, so there's another island with dinosaurs on it -no fences this time- and you want to send people in, very few people, on the ground, right?"

"You mean there are two islands with dinosaurs on them?"

Like, unless you're a person who watches a movie just to pass time, this is not a confusing matter.

I think this is also partly why shared universes and canonicity are becoming more prevalent in films nowadays (mainly in action, adventure, sci-fi, and horror genres), because people want to see film series that maintain some sense of flow and logic from one installment to the next.

The downside, is when you have multiple timelines, (see: Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Godzilla)

Granted continuity errors will still exist, because changes can and will be made to fit the needs of the story.

The difference is just that, TLW and JP3 mention many times that there were 2 islands. That's why most in the general public / casual fans do remember that there were 2 islands.

But JW never mentioned Rexy as THE T Rex from the first park. Neither did JW:FK right? (I have only seen it once).

So it is a fact mostly known to hardcore fans. Most in the general audience/ very casual fans are not aware if this.

_______________
Link to the T Rex Spinosaurus rematch in Jurassic World 3 petition that Colin Trevorrow noted. We hope everyone joins and help us share it.

https://www.facebook.com/Petition-to-have-a-T-Rex-Spinosaurus-rematch-in-Jurassic-World-2-194141920665797/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CT-1138
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
avatar

Posts : 883
Points : 3540
Reputation : 59
Join date : 2012-04-06
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:28 pm

@1morey wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

But Isla Sorna's stock of dinosaurs (at least what is left of them), were relocated to Isla Nublar. And it's already been stated that Isla Nublar prior to Mt. Sibo's eruption was the home of the last living dinosaurs.

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

According to the DPG, all the Sorna dinosaurs were transported to Isla Nublar prior to the events of Jurassic World. The undisclosed number of T. rex, raptors and the Spinosaurus died from plot convenience.
Doesn't say all of them were. It says that surviving species were, but does not specify of which species and how many of them. In fact, one could argue that within the context of that bullet point, it's referring only to the 4 illegally cloned species.

_______________
SOMETHING HAS SURVIVED
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://abekowalski.deviantart.com/
Mr. Robustus
Compsognathus
Compsognathus
avatar

Posts : 105
Points : 193
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2018-05-30
Location : San Dromaeo

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Sun Jul 22, 2018 11:43 pm

@CT-1138 wrote:
@1morey wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

But Isla Sorna's stock of dinosaurs (at least what is left of them), were relocated to Isla Nublar. And it's already been stated that Isla Nublar prior to Mt. Sibo's eruption was the home of the last living dinosaurs.

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

According to the DPG, all the Sorna dinosaurs were transported to Isla Nublar prior to the events of Jurassic World. The undisclosed number of T. rex, raptors and the Spinosaurus died from plot convenience.
Doesn't say all of them were. It says that surviving species were, but does not specify of which species and how many of them. In fact, one could argue that within the context of that bullet point, it's referring only to the 4 illegally cloned species.

The BBC News part in Fallen Kingdom explicitly says that the eruption on Nublar "will kill the last living dinosaurs on the planet", meaning that there's only dinosaurs on Nublar. And considering Rexy is the only T. rex on Nublar, and certainly the only one captured and brought to mainland, then yes, Rexy is the last living T. rex in the Jurassic Park franchise.

_______________
"In the end, it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex."

"Try to imagine yourself in the Late Quaternary. You get your first look at this six-foot Psittacosaurus as you enter a city. You stay still, because you think that maybe its visual acuity is based on movement. Maybe it's not all that bright. But no... not Homo sapiens. You stare at it, and it stares right back at you. And that's when it starts shooting you with this... THE GUN!" - Dr. Mongoliensis
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NikoRex
Embryo
Embryo
avatar

Posts : 17
Points : 55
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-07-09
Location : Site B

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:23 am

@JannToshj wrote:
It's nice fan service to have her back but I don't see why it is important to have her be the only one and not have any others like the Rex family from TLW?


in fact having so little dinosaurs honestly makes the ending of FK a little hollow. That small amount of dinos likely would prevent no threat to us and would be disposed of pretty quick

I know what you mean. That were my toughts exactly. Imagine they brought the animals to the sanctuary island and the JP rex died of old age (what shouldn't take that much long) then the T.rex will be extinct.
I think it would be nice, if we had seen in FK a young male T.rex, similar like in the first novel. That would give hope, that the T.rex would reproduce and won't went extinct again.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CT-1138
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
avatar

Posts : 883
Points : 3540
Reputation : 59
Join date : 2012-04-06
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:51 pm

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
@1morey wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

But Isla Sorna's stock of dinosaurs (at least what is left of them), were relocated to Isla Nublar. And it's already been stated that Isla Nublar prior to Mt. Sibo's eruption was the home of the last living dinosaurs.

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

According to the DPG, all the Sorna dinosaurs were transported to Isla Nublar prior to the events of Jurassic World. The undisclosed number of T. rex, raptors and the Spinosaurus died from plot convenience.
Doesn't say all of them were. It says that surviving species were, but does not specify of which species and how many of them. In fact, one could argue that within the context of that bullet point, it's referring only to the 4 illegally cloned species.

The BBC News part in Fallen Kingdom explicitly says that the eruption on Nublar "will kill the last living dinosaurs on the planet", meaning that there's only dinosaurs on Nublar. And considering Rexy is the only T. rex on Nublar, and certainly the only one captured and brought to mainland, then yes, Rexy is the last living T. rex in the Jurassic Park franchise.
If the BBC did their research, they'd know that birds are also dinosaurs so, technically they're lying. Wouldn't be the first time, either. I personally consider the BBC only a semi-trustworthy source. They've been caught fudging maps for their own purposes several times.

Besides, there were 6 T. rexes on Sorna when the headcount was taken. They were breeding so by the time of the Masrani buyout there were probably more. Unless Masrani had every other T. rex culled (unlikely), Rexy is not the last of her kind.

_______________
SOMETHING HAS SURVIVED
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://abekowalski.deviantart.com/
Mr. Robustus
Compsognathus
Compsognathus
avatar

Posts : 105
Points : 193
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2018-05-30
Location : San Dromaeo

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:26 pm

@CT-1138 wrote:
@Mr. Robustus wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
@1morey wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

But Isla Sorna's stock of dinosaurs (at least what is left of them), were relocated to Isla Nublar. And it's already been stated that Isla Nublar prior to Mt. Sibo's eruption was the home of the last living dinosaurs.

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
@CT-1138 wrote:
Doubtful she's the last of the Rexes. There were 6 documented Rexes on Sorna after the Isla Nublar Incident, and we know they were breeding, so there may be more. Roberta was the only Rex we know of on Nublar, meaning there's still plenty on Sorna.

According to the DPG, all the Sorna dinosaurs were transported to Isla Nublar prior to the events of Jurassic World. The undisclosed number of T. rex, raptors and the Spinosaurus died from plot convenience.
Doesn't say all of them were. It says that surviving species were, but does not specify of which species and how many of them. In fact, one could argue that within the context of that bullet point, it's referring only to the 4 illegally cloned species.

The BBC News part in Fallen Kingdom explicitly says that the eruption on Nublar "will kill the last living dinosaurs on the planet", meaning that there's only dinosaurs on Nublar. And considering Rexy is the only T. rex on Nublar, and certainly the only one captured and brought to mainland, then yes, Rexy is the last living T. rex in the Jurassic Park franchise.
If the BBC did their research, they'd know that birds are also dinosaurs so, technically they're lying. Wouldn't be the first time, either. I personally consider the BBC only a semi-trustworthy source. They've been caught fudging maps for their own purposes several times.

Besides, there were 6 T. rexes on Sorna when the headcount was taken. They were breeding so by the time of the Masrani buyout there were probably more. Unless Masrani had every other T. rex culled (unlikely), Rexy is not the last of her kind.

You are reeeally grasping at straws here. This isn't real life, it's a movie. It could be even Fox News, it doesn't matter what news channel it is. The news feed is just a storytelling device to give us, the audience, expository dialogue about the state of affairs: it's been three years after the fall of Jurassic World; the long-dormant volcano of Nublar is going to erupt; there are only non-avian dinosaurs left on Nublar, so this means the end of the last non-avian dinosaurs of the planet; and people are debating whether or not they should be saved. Besides, by that logic, Blue shouldn't be the last of her kind either. In-universe, if there was anything left on Sorna, either Claire, Lockwood, or any news channel with access to a helicopter would know about it and mention it. Also, if Sorna still had a thriving population of dinosaurs, then it would only make sense to take Nublar's dinosaurs there instead of a new island (regardless of the Sanctuary being real or not).

The whole drive of Fallen Kingdom's plot doesn't make any sense if there's dinosaurs on Sorna.

If you keep telling yourself that there's still something on Sorna, you'll only be setting yourself for disappointment. The movies will never go back to the islands, especially with the third JW being the final movie of the franchise, at least for now (the rights go back to Crichton's family after six movies, and Universal/Trevorrow doesn't have plans for more than a trilogy anyway). All that fans will get from these new movies is an occasional namedrop of Sorna as a wink-wink, nudge-nudge from the filmmakers.

_______________
"In the end, it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex."

"Try to imagine yourself in the Late Quaternary. You get your first look at this six-foot Psittacosaurus as you enter a city. You stay still, because you think that maybe its visual acuity is based on movement. Maybe it's not all that bright. But no... not Homo sapiens. You stare at it, and it stares right back at you. And that's when it starts shooting you with this... THE GUN!" - Dr. Mongoliensis
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CT-1138
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
avatar

Posts : 883
Points : 3540
Reputation : 59
Join date : 2012-04-06
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:05 pm

The whole premise behind Sorna is contradictory and coincidence in the first place and its fate has been as steady as the tides for decades. If you think we've seen the last of Sorna's dinosaurs, you are sadly mistaken. There's just as much evidence for dinosaurs on Sorna as there is against it right now. For example, why Lockwood didn't take the dinosaurs to Sorna is because legislation enacted said that dinosaurs could not be taken from or introduced to the island. We'll just have to wait and see for the future. Yes, we're away from the islands. It's the place we NEED to be in this franchise right now, but Sorna will always remain a backup plan. It always was.

I doubt we'll be done at 6 movies. This is a multibillion dollar franchise. In fact, it's Universal's most profitable franchise, more than the Fast and Furious movies. Universal is not letting go of that because of a 25 year old contract. You can bet your butt they've already drawn up a new contract for the Crichton family. This franchise is a cash cow, and limiting the franchise's choices in direction is not how you expand it.

5 years ago, everybody in this fandom thought Nublar was a wasteland, devoid of dinosaurs, of Jurassic Park, of anything but barren rock and saplings regrowing InGen's cleanup. Back then, we had very good evidence that Nublar was empty. JP The Game, which Universal still considers canon, implied Nublar was napalmed to obliteration. Ludlow's speech to the InGen board also implied Nublar facilities "both organic and inorganic" had been destroyed. Then one tweet came through that changed everything...


In this franchise, life finds a way.

_______________
SOMETHING HAS SURVIVED
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://abekowalski.deviantart.com/
NikoRex
Embryo
Embryo
avatar

Posts : 17
Points : 55
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-07-09
Location : Site B

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:35 pm

^ Yupp. It's totally true with Nublar's "past". In my headcanon "something has survived" on Site B.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Mr. Robustus
Compsognathus
Compsognathus
avatar

Posts : 105
Points : 193
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2018-05-30
Location : San Dromaeo

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:51 pm

Again: really grasping at straws here. It seems you really don't want to accept that Universal and the filmmakers/screenwriters don't give a rat's ass about TLW and JP3. The whole franchise banks now on the nostalgia factor, hence why there's only Nublar. The general audience only has nostalgia for the first movie, while the sequels are universally panned, no matter how many Jurassic Park fans scream that "Lost World is as good as the first movie!"

The whole point of "destroying Nublar" is because the screenwriters were running out of credible ideas to get characters back to the islands and fuck around with a bunch of free-roaming dinosaurs for two hours. That was a problem back during pre-production for Jurassic Park III (not even Crichton could come up with a reason), and continued to be a problem for more than ten years when Jurassic Park IV was in development hell.

That, coupled with the fact that only the small demographic of Jurassic Park fans even remember Isla Sorna, tells me that if the franchise continues beyond the sixth movie, we are not seeing Sorna again. Hell, it's more likely they will come up with yet another island (like they did in Fallen Kingdom) rather than going to the trouble of coming up with a reason as to why no one mentioned Sorna during the whole World trilogy. How do you think a movie going back to Sorna would even go?

JURASSIC PARK VII: REVENGE OF THE LOST WORLD

NICK VAN OWEN: BBC is lying! We need to go back to Isla Sorna!
SARAH HARDING: ... why?
NICK VAN OWEN: BECAUSE.

(One and a half hours later)

SARAH HARDING: Well, that was an adventure!
NICK VAN OWEN: Who would guess that after the first hour, a T. rex would show up and destroy our resources, and we would have to spend the second hour trying to find a way out of the island?
SARAH HARDING: Yes, but we learned our lesson now! We'll never mess with dinosaurs again!

Fade to black.

_______________
"In the end, it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex."

"Try to imagine yourself in the Late Quaternary. You get your first look at this six-foot Psittacosaurus as you enter a city. You stay still, because you think that maybe its visual acuity is based on movement. Maybe it's not all that bright. But no... not Homo sapiens. You stare at it, and it stares right back at you. And that's when it starts shooting you with this... THE GUN!" - Dr. Mongoliensis
Back to top Go down
View user profile
#TRexSpinorematch
Parasaurolophus
Parasaurolophus
avatar

Posts : 299
Points : 764
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2017-05-28

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:13 am

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
Again: really grasping at straws here. It seems you really don't want to accept that Universal and the filmmakers/screenwriters don't give a rat's ass about TLW and JP3. The whole franchise banks now on the nostalgia factor, hence why there's only Nublar. The general audience only has nostalgia for the first movie, while the sequels are universally panned, no matter how many Jurassic Park fans scream that "Lost World is as good as the first movie!"

The whole point of "destroying Nublar" is because the screenwriters were running out of credible ideas to get characters back to the islands and fuck around with a bunch of free-roaming dinosaurs for two hours. That was a problem back during pre-production for Jurassic Park III (not even Crichton could come up with a reason), and continued to be a problem for more than ten years when Jurassic Park IV was in development hell.

That, coupled with the fact that only the small demographic of Jurassic Park fans even remember Isla Sorna, tells me that if the franchise continues beyond the sixth movie, we are not seeing Sorna again. Hell, it's more likely they will come up with yet another island (like they did in Fallen Kingdom) rather than going to the trouble of coming up with a reason as to why no one mentioned Sorna during the whole World trilogy.

While it is true that the people behind JW and JWFK are mostly fans of the original and don't really care for TLW or JP3 and that the franchise now banks on the nostalgia of the original...

It is not true that TLW is "universally panned" or that Isla Sorna is remembered only by a few hardcore fans.

The general consensus of TLW with the general public is that while they think it not as great as the first one, it is still seen as a sequel that most people at the very least think it is ok, and among the hardcore fanbase it is very well liked with some loving it as much as the first. That is far from "universally panned". That myth was the result of Youtubers and articles (made by people who were not big fans of the franchise) that kept saying nobody liked TLW without actually knowing it was THE film of 1997 and without knowing that there has never been any actual backlash to it.

And most people who have seen the Jurassic Park movies are in fact aware of what Sorna is. Both casual fans and the general public at the very least they remember that there were 2 islands even if a few might not remember the name. After all, the fact that there were 2 islands is something that it is mentioned many times in both TLW and JP3. So it is hard for someone to not be aware of it at all.

_______________
Link to the T Rex Spinosaurus rematch in Jurassic World 3 petition that Colin Trevorrow noted. We hope everyone joins and help us share it.

https://www.facebook.com/Petition-to-have-a-T-Rex-Spinosaurus-rematch-in-Jurassic-World-2-194141920665797/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CT-1138
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
avatar

Posts : 883
Points : 3540
Reputation : 59
Join date : 2012-04-06
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:59 am

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
Again: really grasping at straws here. It seems you really don't want to accept that Universal and the filmmakers/screenwriters don't give a rat's ass about TLW and JP3. The whole franchise banks now on the nostalgia factor, hence why there's only Nublar. The general audience only has nostalgia for the first movie, while the sequels are universally panned, no matter how many Jurassic Park fans scream that "Lost World is as good as the first movie!"
While I agree the JW movies have generally used a lot of nostalgia and callbacks, I will readily disagree that TLW and JP/// are universally panned. Beyond the fandom, which has no small voice of support for TLW, there has been a very strong resurgence in support for both movies among the general audience.

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
The whole point of "destroying Nublar" is because the screenwriters were running out of credible ideas to get characters back to the islands and fuck around with a bunch of free-roaming dinosaurs for two hours. That was a problem back during pre-production for Jurassic Park III (not even Crichton could come up with a reason), and continued to be a problem for more than ten years when Jurassic Park IV was in development hell.
The reason they're getting away from the islands isn't for a lack of ideas (I myself could come up with several, most of them originating from the books), it's because it's where Trevorrow and Spielberg have wanted to take us. JP was always going to move away from the island, going as far back as the earliest scripts for the fourth Jurassic movie.

@Mr. Robustus wrote:
That, coupled with the fact that only the small demographic of Jurassic Park fans even remember Isla Sorna, tells me that if the franchise continues beyond the sixth movie, we are not seeing Sorna again. Hell, it's more likely they will come up with yet another island (like they did in Fallen Kingdom) rather than going to the trouble of coming up with a reason as to why no one mentioned Sorna during the whole World trilogy. How do you think a movie going back to Sorna would even go?
Small demographic of fans remember Isla Sorna?


_______________
SOMETHING HAS SURVIVED
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://abekowalski.deviantart.com/
NikoRex
Embryo
Embryo
avatar

Posts : 17
Points : 55
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2018-07-09
Location : Site B

PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:33 am

@Mr. Robustus wrote:

The whole drive of Fallen Kingdom's plot doesn't make any sense if there's dinosaurs on Sorna.


But you can look it that way: TLW doesn't make any sense now, because according to the DPG, InGen went in 1994 to Nublar and checked them. So why InGen didn't went to Nublar the first place to harvest them? It's smaller, they are no more Raptors and only the rex would be an potential thread.

Well, they went to Sorna, because Nublar was "destroyed" in 1997. It was even written back at the cassette tape.

Now JW retcons the deleted scene in TLW and the DPG putting some information that doesn't make any sense in the long run.

You see, everything is possible.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?   

Back to top Go down
 
why make the Rex from the first movie the only surviving T-Rex?
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Jurassic Mainframe :: The Franchise :: Film Universe :: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Talk-
Jump to: