Jurassic Series

[dbt1949]

In the first movie we have the park and it goes astray and the humans evacuate and leave the animals there to live out their lives.
In the second movie we find out there's a second island where the dinos are raised and transferred over to the first island when needed.
In the third movie the paleontologist guy is hired to rescue a couples son. Now that must have been the first island as he hadn't visited the second island and wouldn't have been much use as a guide.
In the fourth movie we see another dino park. Is this the first or second island? Or is it a third island?
In the fifth movie we see the bad guys grabbing dinos as a volcano destroys the island. Is this the Jurassic World island? I figure probably as the two people from the World movie are in it. The dinos of course escape into I guess is the west coast.
And I guess the last movie is about the adventures of the dinos in the US.
Now my question is this.....how many dino islands were there?

[TheMix]

In the third movie the paleontologist guy is hired to rescue a couples son. Now that must have been the first island as he hadn't visited the second island and wouldn't have been much use as a guide.

Actually, it was the second island. And they comment on the fact that he's never been to the island. The parents just didn't know that. (It's been on tv recently.)

In the fourth movie we see another dino park. Is this the first or second island? Or is it a third island?

I think it's a new island. But since I usually catch it part way through while flipping through channels, I don't remember specifics.

In the fifth movie we see the bad guys grabbing dinos as a volcano destroys the island. Is this the Jurassic World island?

Yes

Now my question is this.....how many dino islands were there?

That escaped into the wilds in America? I want to say between 15 and 30. I think they mention it right at the end. But for some reason that movie is not getting replayed on tv lately. So I've only seen it once when it came out.

[wonderpug]

Jurassic World (#4) takes place in the same island as the original movie. At one point they stumble across some abandoned buildings from the first movie.

[TheMix]

Jurassic World (#4) takes place in the same island as the original movie. At one point they stumble across some abandoned buildings from the first movie.

Duh. I knew that. Sheesh.

[Jeff V]

how many dino islands were there?

As many as they need. They are manufactured from recycled garbage islands.

[stessier]

Now my question is this.....how many dino islands were there?

That escaped into the wilds in America? I want to say between 15 and 30. I think they mention it right at the end. But for some reason that movie is not getting replayed on tv lately. So I've only seen it once when it came out.

The question was how many islands were there, not how many dinos escaped.

[TheMix]

That's what I get for browsing OO before letting my coffee set in.

[wonderpug]

For the record, almost no islands escaped into the wilds in America.

[Blackhawk]

Now my question is this.....how many dino islands were there?

Five in the chain, two were used in the canon by Ingen (whether you go by the books or films.) They were Las Cinco Muertes, an archipelago of the coast of Costa Rica.

Jurassic Park 1 was Isla Nublar.
JP2 was Isla Sorna
JP3 was Isla Sorna again (Grant is a good guide because he knows dinosaurs and has survived them, and Ian Malcolm would tell you where to stuff it.)
JW 1& 2 were back on Isla Nublar.

[Rumpy]

I preferred the first two movies. It seemed to me they started getting sillier and sillier, and these latest movies seem to not even care about the science and are just interested in being big blockbusters.

I understood that because the original park was deemed a failure, they were trying again on the first island and trying to learn from their earlier mistakes, ie now they were going to have a fully functioning park that was supposedly safer. But we all know how well that went.

[Jeff V]

I preferred the first two movies. It seemed to me they started getting sillier and sillier, and these latest movies seem to not even care about the science and are just interested in being big blockbusters.

I understood that because the original park was deemed a failure, they were trying again on the first island and trying to learn from their earlier mistakes, ie now they were going to have a fully functioning park that was supposedly safer. But we all know how well that went.

I'd be more interested in a faux-documentary showing just how they rebuilt containment fencing on an island running amok with hostile wild life. How many workers perished in that project?

[Blackhawk]

I preferred the first two movies. It seemed to me they started getting sillier and sillier, and these latest movies seem to not even care about the science and are just interested in being big blockbusters.

Not coincidentally, the first two were the only two that were directly based on Michael Crichton's novels (although the second one was only barely based on it - sort of a screenplay version of homeopathy.)

The third movie had sequences with some inspiration from the two novels like the pterodactyl cage scene (which was actually in the first novel shortly after the first T-Rex attack as Grant and the kids were making their way back to the visitor's center area on a rubbber raft and floated through it.)

The Jurassic World movies are pure Hollywood.

FWIW, in the books, just to illustrate the differences

Spoiler:

John Hammond died to the little dinosaurs in the first novel, due to him being more Donald Trump than Grandpa. He really was an evil dick, and the scene with the lawyer demanding that admission be insanely high because people would pay it anyway? That was Hammond in the book.

The lawyer was something of a hero rather than a coward, and didn't get eaten by the T-Rex.

In Lost World, there was no segment that involved dinosaurs on the mainland save for the scene with the little dinos attacking the girl and a couple of corpses early on.

In Lost World, Ian Malcolm (Goldblum) spent almost the entire story injured, suffering from PTSD, utterly whacked on morphine, and didn't contribute much of anything.

[Rumpy]

I preferred the first two movies. It seemed to me they started getting sillier and sillier, and these latest movies seem to not even care about the science and are just interested in being big blockbusters.

I understood that because the original park was deemed a failure, they were trying again on the first island and trying to learn from their earlier mistakes, ie now they were going to have a fully functioning park that was supposedly safer. But we all know how well that went.

I'd be more interested in a faux-documentary showing just how they rebuilt containment fencing on an island running amok with hostile wild life. How many workers perished in that project?

Ohhh that'd be awesome. I'm surprised they hadn't done that for the anniversary, as a promo for Jurassic World.

When done well, faux-documentaries can be quite entertaining. A few years ago, there was faux-documentary take on War of the Worlds set during WW1. Well, it never explicitly called itself War of the Worlds, possibly due to licensing issues, but while different enough, it still had the overall recognizable structure of the story, and its use of WW1 footage to tell the story was brilliant. I've never seen anything like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great ... %80%931917

Not coincidentally, the first two were the only two that were directly based on Michael Crichton's novels (although the second one was only barely based on it - sort of a screenplay version of homeopathy.)

One of my Uncles is a paleontologist (and still teaches at UPenn) and was credited as a source in the credits. So, I'll always have a soft spot for that one. I had a conversation with him about that once, and we both laughed at the fairly good likeness to Robert Bakker in the movie (the man with the tilly hat and long beard). I don't remember the specifics, but I think he's the one that gets eaten while in the potty. I might be conflating both movies though.

The Jurassic World movies are pure Hollywood.

Yep, agreed. While the original movies were still blockbusters, I think they still stuck to recent findings fairly well, given what we knew at the time. But the new movies just totally throw that out the window. The idea of someone communicating with raptors as an alpha is laughable.

[Blackhawk]

One of my Uncles is a paleontologist (and still teaches at UPenn) and was credited as a source in the credits. So, I'll always have a soft spot for that one. I had a conversation with him about that once, and we both laughed at the fairly good likeness to Robert Bakker in the movie (the man with the tilly hat and long beard). I don't remember the specifics, but I think he's the one that gets eaten while in the potty. I might be conflating both movies though.

A quick check: