Talk:Jurassic World Rebirth

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Standalone sequel?

[edit]

Lately, there's been some disagreements on whether or not this film is a standalone sequel to the previous Jurassic World films. Rather than repeatedly reverting the changes, I'm opening a discussion here so other editors can chime in. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a quick google and there are lots of reliable sources to support that this is a standalone sequel, here are just a few: RadioTimes Vulture Reactor Total Film
IGN Salon and EW - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also Time and SlashFilm, with the latter really going into depth on the standalone elements. I think there's no question here how it is being described in reputable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD "is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". How much a film subjectively does or does not stand alone from previous installments is rarely a key point of a Wikipedia film article and it isn't a key point that should be highlighted in the lead section. It is clearly not a key point that has been raised in the Production section of this article, where the writer says he deliberately avoided any retcons, that's fitting in with the franchise not standing alone. The key point is that is part of the Jurassic franchise, ie a sequel. The rest is WP:FANCRUFT, WP:UNDUE and missing the point of WP:LEAD. This same discussion keeps coming up over and over again, it is nearly as bad as lead sections subjectively claiming that a film has been "loosely adapted" from the source when the only thing that would be actually note-worthy is a case of Hollywood faithfully adapting the source. Similarly a sequel that doesn't make sense without having seen the previous film would be a key point to mention up front, not the vague promotional claims of standing alone. -- 109.79.69.189 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fancruft to call this film a "standalone sequel" and it is not undue weight when it is a label attributed to multiple reliable sources, which is the case here. WP:LEAD does not prevent or discourage the usage of a more specific term to refer to films. I find arguments here and in the edit summary linked above against including this label to be lacking, because we are not the ones editorializing this phrase, and the standalone sequel target specifically explains it is "a work set in the same universe, yet has little or no narrative connection to its predecessor, and can stand on its own without a thorough understanding of the series", so that is not contradictory, just more specific and different from a direct sequel / follow-up / reboot / soft-reboot, etc. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 23:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is basically not related at all to any of the previous films is significant, stating upfront that it is a direct sequel is misleading and does not align with the sources provided. This is not a "promotional" claim, it is an important point of clarification for readers to understand this film's relationship with the rest of the franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the TB and adamstom. The type of sequel is an important detail that many who may be reading about the film for the first time here are likely wondering. And we don't even need to guess that it's important. Reliable sources that describe the film often mention this up front, so we should as well. If they are treating it with significance, Wikipedia should follow their lead without editorial bias. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 July 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic World Rebirth → Jurassic World: RebirthJurassic World: Rebirth – Spectritus (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus - did you have a specific rational to provide for why this move should occur? TiggerJay (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiggerjay Well, it makes more sense and is more grammatical to include the ":" and it's included on other websites. Spectritus (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which "other websites" use the colon? It would help to have sources to gauge for this, though, the studio's official billing does not include a colon, and that is what we should go off of. Not some unaffiliated websites. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gamereactor.fr/jurassic-world-rebirth-passe-au-numerique-en-aout-1878593/
https://www.gamereactor.fr/box-office-superman-continue-de-monter-en-fleche-tandis-que-jurassic-world-rebirth-continue-de-dominer-1882133/
https://www.cinemaclock.com/films/jurassic-world-rebirth-2025
https://deadline.com/2025/06/jurassic-world-rebirth-box-office-projection-1236432006/ Spectritus (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother checking any of these except the high-quality one, Deadline Hollywood. If you look more closely, that specific article only uses the colon for Fallen Kingdom and Dominion, but in the margin are links to two other Deadline articles that do use the colon: this one and this one. Both of those are written by a different author, who apparently has a different preference.
So you've found two examples from a HQ source – a HQ source that usually omits the colon, except for one particular author writing for the publisher. I'm sure there are more examples out there, but the real question, is whether or not that's the trend or just an anomaly? Seems like the latter to me as I explained below. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, and WikiProject Film have been notified of this discussion. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The official title, as per Universal and the billing block do not have a colon. Your argument only holds up if you consider “Rebirth” a subtitle, which is a pretty silly subtitle. It’s part of the full title.
It’d be like saying we should title the 2015 movie “Jurassic: World” SuperFunHouse1 (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - We should be using the official name of the movie. Rebirth is not a subtitle. It is part of the full title. IMDb is often wrong. Anyone can edit it with less vetting. Use the WayBackMachine. Both Dominion and Rebirth used to not have a colon. It goes back and forth. The official title, as per Universal and the billing block do not have a colon. Your argument only holds up if you consider “Rebirth” a subtitle, which is a pretty silly subtitle. It’s part of the full title. It’d be like saying we should title the 2015 movie “Jurassic: World” SuperFunHouse1 (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The flashback scene takes place in 2010 not 2008

[edit]

Would change it myself but not allowed, because only people who cant follow films are allowed to make the edits here it seems. 2A02:C7C:E239:A600:95F5:3DB2:3F4B:D468 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit in filming section

[edit]

Change "poisonous" to "venomous" when referring to the water snakes in Thailand. (a poisonous snake poses little risk to you as long as you don't eat it) Danarowing (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Present day" is being misunderstood. Film takes place in 2027.

[edit]

Change "three years after" to "five years after", and "2008" to "2010". Below are arguments to support this proposed change.

The main story of Rebirth takes place in the year 2027. Multiple sources, including the official synopsis available on the Jurassic World website, specify the film is set five years after the events of Jurassic World Dominion, which takes place in 2022. As such, the opening of the film also takes place in 2010, rather than 2008.

The "Present day" title card in the film is absolutely not indicatory of it taking place in 2025.

Firstly, because "present day" is an ambigious term which can be used to specify events taking place within the boundaries of the current period of time, not neccessarily one specific point in time; the term does not equate to definitively establishing the film is set in the same year it was released.

Secondly, and most importantly, because official sources, one linked above, specify it takes place five years after the previous film set in 2022, not three.

There is more evidence to suggest the film indeed takes place in 2027, rather than 2025, in fact it is stated blatantly by Universal themselves in supplementary marketing material, and, as mentioned before, "present day" is not synonymous with "current year", especially in a work of fiction that is in it's own established universe and timeline. 46.112.74.83 (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Official website synopsis is out of date, provide a better source for your request. Vestrian24Bio 16:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have certainly been sources that repeat the "five years" line, but I'm not sure if they take precedence over the actual movie or not. If it was meant to take place in "2027", the onscreen text probably would have just said that instead of "Present day". Furthermore, the text says it has been 32 years since dinosaurs returned, in reference to the first Jurassic Park (1993). That, combined with "Present day", seems pretty clear-cut to me.
With some possible exceptions, I think the use of "present day" in most movies is generally understood to mean the then-current present of whenever the movie was released. The only reason this movie is different is because of the outside sources that say something different. If we're ignoring those sources and sticking to the film itself, then I don't believe there's any ambiguity of when it takes place.
Aside from keeping the article as-is, there are a couple other options: