Talk:Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is the page ready for creation?

Filming has begun. Is the page ready to become an official article?  AJFU  (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@AJFU: Yes, since filming has begun, we can move the article into the mainspace. Please go ahead with the move, and let us know if you have any difficulties. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Hello. While attempting the move, I received a message that read You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. I guess it's because Jurassic World 2 already exists as a redirect page.  AJFU  (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought that might happen. You can request a technical/uncontested move at WP:RM. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rexy Confirmed

With Colin Trevorrow confirming on twitter that Rexy will return for the sequel should this be included on the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.79.26 (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Name

Jurassic World 2 shouldn't be the title of this page until the title is officially announced. It should just be "Untitled Jurassic Park/World sequel" for now. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jurassic World 2 seems to be the common title by an overwhelming margin. A Google search for "Jurassic World 2" brings up 25 million results, while "untitled Jurassic World sequel" brings up 437,000 results and "untitled Jurassic Park sequel" brings up 226,000 results. Although maybe it might be worth mentioning that the film's official title has not been announced yet.  AJFU  (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being patronising or if you're just completely moronic by saying that. If I wanted news about the new Han Solo movie, I'd literally type "Han Solo" into Google, not "Untitled Han Solo film" as the Wikipedia page is known as. The studio has NOT released an official title, therefore "Jurassic World 2" is NOT the official title. Plus it's confusing anyway considering, if any numbers are involved, it should be "Jurassic Park V". 109.151.218.211 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant no patronisation or moronicy. My point was that Jurassic World 2 is the name most commonly used to refer to the film, and pages are usually titled using the subject's common name. While it's not the official title, it is the one that seems to be most widely used.  AJFU  (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not rename the article "Jurassic Park 5" as the director confirmed that's what the movie literally is?  Cineplex  (talk) 12:15am - February 26, 2017

Bayona has said that it's both Jurassic World 2 and Jurassic Park 5. Neither title is official, but between those two names, shouldn't the more-common title be used? Or would it be better to rename it as "Untitled Jurassic World sequel"? I'm not sure how these types of situations are usually handled. The same interview mentions that the film does have an official title that has not been released yet ("I asked Bayona if the film has an official title yet, and while he said yes, he couldn't tell me what it is."). Maybe we could add that as a reference or explanatory footnote to clarify that the official title has not been announced.  AJFU  (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We are going to wait until the official title of that movie comes up before we rename anything. It's the best course of action without creating disruptive editing. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Jurassic World is the fourth film in the series. The next film is the fifth film in the franchise. Everyone is calling the next film JW2 because that is the lazy title the media immediately began shoving down everyone's throats. I have never before seen the fifth film in a series get titled as being the second film. I have never seen a more obvious sequel as JW, which is very clearly a sequel and a fourth installment, get regarded as a spin off or be referred to as " the first film". It makes no real sense that everyone is treating JW as some separate franchise, when it very clearly is not. People should watch JW again and ask themselves how it is anything other than a sequel. The director did say the film acts as a sequel to JW, but he also very specifically said "it is very much the fifth entry in the saga". What other movie franchise ever titled the fifth entry with a 2? It makes literally no sense that everyone is referring to the next film as JW 2. I personally would rather people call it what it is, Jurassic Park 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.222.80 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Title

This should be re-titled to "Untitled Jurassic Park sequel" for now. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Calling this movie Jurassic World 2 is just adding to the mass confusion people have oddly developed to this film. I don't know how everyone decided the fifth film in the franchise should be titled with a 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.222.80 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Teaser Image

Can we remove the current teaser image for the film? It's just the original teaser image for Jurassic World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.121 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Rafe Spall's character name revealed

This link reveals the full name of Rafe Spall's character as Eli Mills. But we might want to find a reliable to include on here. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

the Indoraptor . . .

Is there an RS yet that defines what "Indoraptor" means (besides the raptor portion)? I keep thinking about Viet-Nam. 50.111.55.122 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Claire and Owen's relationship

Zeekoy91 (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC) ---> i removed the edits that said that Owen and Claire were together, as no pre-release marketing material ever confirmed this to be the case. Therefore, it is a spoiler.

Opening sentences

In writing lead sections, the opening sentences need to connect readers to the topic through noteworthy characteristics. This means that it is not necessary for every film article to identify the director if the director is not well-known or a reason that the film is notable. This film is primarily notable because it is part of the Jurassic Park franchise and follows Jurassic World, and the opening should reflect that. Identifying director and other crew members should follow that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

What "important plot details"?

VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I edited the "plot" sequence to mention a scene that several reviewers have picked out as the most poignant in the movie (and one, whose platform happens to be YouTube, actually complained about its absence from this Wikipedia article). Because this scene has been mentioned and deleted before on the grounds of it making the plot summary "too long", I undertook to abbreviate the plot summary by tidying up redundant sentences, of which there were many.

Now I didn't source the reviewers and provide a reason for considering it the most poignant scene – fair enough, that was a mistake and I'll cop to it. What I don't understand is how my abbreviations are supposed to have "removed important details from the plot in the process" as the editor who reversed my changes alleges. I don't want to start an edit war, so if someone can explain what the problems were, I'll let be. Here are the changes I made. Can someone tell me what "important plot details" become unclear with each of the following?

Existing sentence	My edit	Rationale
a small team of mercenaries arrive on the abandoned island to collect a sample... for retrieving its DNA.	a small team of mercenaries arrive on the abandoned island to collect a sample... for its DNA.	They're taking a sample; they want DNA from the sample. What information does the word "retrieving" convey that wasn't there without it? It's awkward English (a more natural phrase would be "to retrieve its DNA").
...the lagoon gate is left open, allowing the Mosasaurus to escape into the ocean.	...the lagoon gate is left open, allowing the Mosasaurus to escape.	Where else would it be escaping to?
a U.S. Senate hearing debates whether Isla Nublar's dinosaurs should be saved from an impending volcanic eruption.	a U.S. Senate hearing debates whether to save Isla Nublar's dinosaurs from an impending volcanic eruption.	Passive voice has its place, but this isn't it. The Senate aren't pondering this as a philosophical point, they're deciding whether to take action.
Dr. Ian Malcolm says that the dinosaurs should be left to die as he believes nature is correcting the mistake that John Hammond made by cloning the dinosaurs long ago.	Dr. Ian Malcolm recommends leaving the dinosaurs to die to correct the mistake that John Hammond made by cloning them long ago.	Second mention of "the dinosaurs" in one sentence is redundant. To "say something should be done" is to "recommend doing it". I'll grant that my phrasing removes the notion of "nature" as agent; but however thematically significant that might be, it's not a plot point.
Jurassic World's former operations manager, Claire Dearing, has created the Dinosaur Protection Group, an organization to save the dinosaurs.	Jurassic World's former operations manager, Claire Dearing, has instituted the Dinosaur Protection Group to save them.	I'll cop to "instituted" being just as awkward and inappropriate as "created". "Started" might have been better. Something called the Dinosaur Protection Group is obviously going to be an organization, not (say) a new piece of technology. "An organization to save the dinosaurs" is awkward phrasing. "The dinosaurs" were the object of the previous sentence and it's still a bit redundant to repeat the noun.
After the Senate rejects the rescue of the dinosaurs...	After the Senate rejects the dinosaur rescue...	Yet another redundant use of "the dinosaurs". Nobody is going to wonder whether we've suddenly started talking about rescuing puppies if we start using pronouns instead of repeating nouns, or, as here, use "dinosaur" adjectivally. The phrasing is more coherent without the repeated noun.
Claire meets Lockwood at his estate in Northern California. Lockwood and his aide, Eli Mills, intend to move the dinosaurs to a new island sanctuary, where they will live without human interference.	Claire meets Lockwood and his aide Eli Mills at his estate in Northern California. They plan to move the dinosaurs to a new island sanctuary, free of human interference.	She meets them both, not just Lockwood. Mills does not, in fact, "intend" to move the dinosaurs to a new island sanctuary at all, although he does appear to intend so at this point in the movie. The three of them (not just Lockwood and Mills) do discuss plans for moving the dinosaurs to the sanctuary; Lockwood and Claire wrongly believe this discussion to be in good faith. What information does "where they will live without human interference" convey that "free of human interference" does not?
Zia tries her best to keep Blue alive.	Zia works to keep Blue alive.	OK, this one does unclarify a small point (is Zia doing her very best?) but I don't see that this removes plot-critical information.
Claire and Franklin use an abandoned gyrosphere to flee from the pyroclastic flow...	They flee from the pyroclastic flow in an abandoned gyrosphere...	The previous sentence makes clear that "Claire and Franklin" are the subject, so the repetition of their names is redundant. "They flee in an abandoned gyrosphere" is more informative than "They use an abandoned gyrosphere to flee". It makes it clear that they are inside the gyrosphere when it falls off the cliff.
Lockwood, informed by Maisie, confronts Mills about the auction but is murdered by him.	Informed by Maisie of the auction, Lockwood confronts Mills, who murders him.	Active is better than passive. The rest of the edit is to bring Mills to the position of being the subject of the active verb.
Owen and Claire escape and find Maisie, who shows them the auction, as the Indoraptor is sold, despite Wu's warning. Owen frees a Stygimoloch to disrupt the auction.	Owen and Claire escape by freeing a Stygimoloch, find Maisie, and disrupt the auction as the Indoraptor is sold, despite Wu's warning.	I'll cop to removing the point that it is Maisie who directs Owen and Claire to the auction. Is that really an important plot point? However, my edit is more accurate with regard to the role of the Stygimoloch. Owen does not "free it to disrupt the auction"; by the time it disrupts the auction it is already free. Owen frees it by encouraging it to break down the wall of its prison and thereby facilitate his and Claire's escape.
and she is the reason John Hammond, who was against human cloning, ended his partnership with Lockwood.	and she is the reason John Hammond, who was against human cloning, ended their partnership.	It's reasonably intuitive, since Lockwood is mentioned in the first clause of the sentence, that he is the implied antecedent of "their" – especially since we do already know that Hammond and Lockwood were partners.

And that's it. That's all my edits. Can somebody point out what important plot details I have removed?

Here are two reviews that single out the abandoned Brachiosaurus as a singularly poignant moment:

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-chris-pratt-1202829194/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/movie-reviews/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom/movie-review/64481604.cms

VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the part about the Brachiosaurus without crossing the world limit in one of my recent edits. It was made possible as some editors corrected many of the mistakes you have pointed out and appropriately trimmed the plot. Achat1999 (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of the details were not important but provided clarification. A sentence where details were providing clarification was "After barely surviving a Baryonyx attack, Claire and Franklin reunite with Owen as the volcano erupts. Claire and Franklin use an abandoned gyrosphere to flee from the pyroclastic flow." Using "they" instead of "Clarie and Franklin" would have implied all three people used the gyrosphere to escape the pyroclastic flow, which was not what happened. As for the sentence explaining why John Hammond ended his partnership with Lockwood, your edits to it were logical and shortened it but the edited version would not have made sense to readers not as well versed in English grammar like you or many other editors. No matter, like I said before, many of those mistakes have now been corrected, incorporated differently or removed altogether by me and other editors. Thank you for pointing them out and giving explanations for each one though. Achat1999 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

While people are writing "good faith" text, the underlying problem with this article (and just about every movie plot synopsis) is not only that it has too much detail, but that it is written in an "in-universe" style. The objective is to give a "brief" overview of the plot and NOT retell every detail of the story or include every single minor character. It should be written in an encyclopedic style (just state the facts) that gives some thoughtful analysis of the underlying themes and morals. Instead the text is embellished with overly descriptive sentences that are imbued with emotion. That does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. There are also issues with clunky, redundant sentences filled with awkward prepositional phrasing. These only add "dead weight" to the text. USE AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE. IF YOU CAN SAY IT WITH ONE WORD INSTEAD OF TWO OR THREE, THEN CHANGE IT. I've edited overly wordy and repetitive clauses down to one concise sentence. PNW Raven (talk)

Brachiosaurus scene

Since the plot has been significantly shortened by removing details that are not very important, can we keep a one sentence summary of the scenes where the lone Brachiosaurus dies and Isla Nublar is destroyed? This is how I have incorporated both scenes in the plot, "An abandoned Brachiosaurus watches it leave and is killed as the volcanic eruption destroys Isla Nublar." I would really appreciate some advice about it. Achat1999 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw that too. I've put it under "Reception", where it may last longer than in "Plot". After all, if it had been cut the plot would be pretty much the same, although the story would be vastly inferior. But several critics pointed it out especially, so there's three solid sources to justify it being in the "Reception" section. (I still think it makes sense to mention it in "Plot", but as long as it's in the page somewhere I won't raise any objections.)

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about saying your edits removed many important details earlier. Certain details that are actually important have been removed or trimmed greatly by others. I have put the Brachiosaurus scene in the Plot section but it could be removed again. Although it is less likely to be removed now as I have trimmed the plot further by using pronouns and clarifing certain sentences. The current word count is 674. Achat1999 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Post-credit scene

I added Nevada after Las Vegas because there are three more Las Vegas', and there is a Wikipedia disambiguation page about Las Vegas. Not all people might know about Las Vegas being in Nevada so it could be used as a point of reference. Achat1999 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why you did, but the Las Vegas in Nevada is overwhelmingly the most common location associated with that name. This is backed up by the fact that when you type Las Vegas in Wikipedia's search box, it takes you straight to that article and not the disambiguation page. Therefore, the clarification is not needed in prose. If it was, then the disambiguation page would act as the primary topic per WP:PTOPIC. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Achat1999 (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Maisie's adoption

In the last paragraph, there are two sentences about Owen and Claire adopting Maisie. "Owen and Claire leave with Maisie, while Blue and the other dinosaurs escape. In a new U.S. Senate hearing, Dr. Malcolm says that humans and dinosaurs will now need to coexist. Owen and Claire have formed a parental bond with Maisie, and with Lockwood dead, they assume guardianship to provide Maisie a chance for a normal life." Should those two sentences be simplified and joined or kept separate as it is now? It can be incorprated as "With Lockwood dead, Owen and Claire become parentally bonded with Maisie and leave with her." Achat1999 (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not add any of that material, but I don't particularly like the phrase "parentally bonded". Also, combining them in that way would lose the idea about "guardianship", although I'm not sure that detail is directly supported by the film. At least I don't recall. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know someone else added it and I agree that the segment does not fit properly with the rest of the material. The only thing that the film shows about Owen and Claire adopting Maisie is Owen and Claire driving a car with Maisie in the back as a small flock of Pteranodon soars above the ocean. Achat1999 (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's ping the editor who did then. NeoBatfreak, what say you? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between what a viewer might reasonably imagine happens based on what they see, and what actually happens onscreen. I won't be at all surprised if in Jurassic World 3 it turns out that Owen and Claire have adopted Maisie. But all we see in this movie is that she's leaving with them. I suggest sticking to the facts. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's remove it then. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

In this interview, Trevorrow confirms that Owen and Claire become the parents of Maisie: "Owen and Claire start off the first movie as these sexually-charged Hepburn and Tracy characters, and in the second film they're taking on much more responsibility as adults, and by the end they're parents – they have this child, and they're driving off into an uncertain future. And that moment when Malcolm is saying irrevocable change, that is happening to them and it's happening right now. I just found that very effective to put that in the context of these people who are evolving in a big way over the course of this story."  AJFU  (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We need to be careful with what we allow into the plot summary. If the interpretation isn't clear from watching the movie, then it doesn't belong in the plot summary section. Per WP:FILMPLOT, "...simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article". The same can be said about the amount of time that has passed since the events that occurred in Jurassic World. We can't say it was weeks or months specifically, since it's not apparent in the actual film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What does and what does not belong in the plot summary?

This has been pulled back and forth enough times already. It's time we had some guidelines. Pinging GoneIn60, PNW Raven, maybe Achat1999.

First, I do have to point out that the length guideline says "400–700 words". The version before it got cut back today for being "far too long" was only 662 words, which falls within that guideline (662 < 700). Can we agree not to undo each other's work for spurious reasons? If it goes over 700 it's too long. If it's under 700, it's not. If it's felt to be "far too long" at 662 words then the length guideline needs to be changed.

Secondly, what exactly does plot mean? It's not exactly the same as "story". "Plot" refers to the sequence of cause-and-effect relations within the fictional universe that make the story events happen. Let me clarify, using the dying Brachiosaurus scene as an example. Why did that happen? The story reason is "to make the dinosaurs sympathetic" – an explanation that reaches outside of the film's universe to the effect on the audience. But the plot reason is "because it didn't get on the ship in time and the fumes and lava engulfed it" – an explanation that stays within the film's universe.

Then, what effects does that scene have? The story effects are, it achieves its purpose – you sympathize with the dinosaurs. At least, that was its effect on me. But the plot effect is – nothing in particular. The voyage, the auction, the escape, the disruption, all would have gone the same way if the Brachiosaurus had died somewhere out of sight and sound of the characters. This scene was critical to the story but not important to the plot.

So when elements of the plot summary are removed for using a "within-universe perspective", I'm not clear what other perspective is felt to be more appropriate. The plot summary should, of course, stick to what's actually on screen and not delve into backstory or character more than is necessary to link on-screen events. But plot is, by definition, within-universe.

What details should it include? Well, since plot is about cause and effect, the guideline I use is that if events late in the plot summary seem to come out of nowhere, there's something missing earlier on. A complete plot summary (absent word-count considerations) would not leave the within-universe causes of events unexplained unless the work leaves them unexplained.

As things stand, I'm unclear by what criteria some events are deemed important enough to include and others not. If "they get a blood transfusion from a Tyrannosaurus" is unimportant, why is "they find Zia" important?

There's also the consideration of what readers will be looking for in this article. When I look up the plot summary of a movie, it's generally to answer a question along the lines of "I remember the characters doing X, but I don't remember why or what came of it." So if there's room within word-count to explain moments that challenged the characters, even if they are of minor consequence in the end, I would include them rather than drop them if possible. VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you but I am not editing the plot of this article anymore. Some details keep getting removed or start edit wars. For example, I do not see why the exact reason of the Indoraptor's death is shortened, it just confounds what actually happened. Plus I am spending too much time editing Wikipedia nowadays. Achat1999 (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable: I haven't been on much the last day or so, and I won't again probably until late Sunday. There has been some back and forth, but for the most part, I feel we've reached a much better version than what we started with. It can always be tweaked, but perhaps we should discuss a final version and stick to it to avoid further disruption in the article. I would suggest perhaps starting a draft in your sandbox that you would invite others to and put a link here. We can continue to discuss here while we hash out any further changes there. Any disagreements can be handled by surveying the group for consensus. The final version of whatever we come up with can then be posted on this talk page for historical purposes, and then we can import it into the article. That should hopefully cut down on the back and forth we've been seeing.

How does that sound? If you don't have time to setup the page in your sandbox, I can get to it in the next 48 hours. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

So is there any interest in this or not? Also, PNW Raven, I reverted your last two edits. I didn't see these as an improvement, and the last time around, I mentioned this discussion in an edit summary. Now I'm pinging you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can start a draft in my sandbox, but it might take me another day or two – been busier today than I thought I would be. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Not ignoring anyone. I needed to consider my response. The issue, as I see it, is that there are differing opinions on what comprises a plot summary. In my case, I consider it a "synopsis" of the movie's plot. I try to abide by Wikipedia standards that the synopsis is a brief overview of the film, and not a linear retelling of the entire story. It should also incorporate overall themes, conflicts, and morality issues within the movie. There is virtually none of that here. Too many editors instead want to give an overly-detailed retelling of every scene, each character, all locations, list every dinosaur, and so on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a substitute for a pop culture fan site. Articles, including plot summaries should be written in a scholarly, encyclopedic style that states facts in a neutral tone. Instead, editors add embellished and descriptive prose filled with emotion. I realize that certain scenes evoke a heart-felt response, such as the brachio. death, and editors feel moved to depict it in a dramatic, "in-universe" style that goes against Wikipedia standards. If readers have questions or want more detailed explanations about characters' actions, motives, or whatever, then Wiki Fandom (or whatever it's called) would be a more appropriate place for that. When Wikipedia says "brief" summaries, that does not only mean word limit. It is also brevity of information that is given.

I also had issues with some editors' writing style, with overly long, wordy sentences that are laded with multiple prepositional phrasing. These only add "dead weight" to text. I was taught to use as few words as possible to express an idea. For the record, I never think what I initially write is necessarily the best. It's always a long process of repeatedly reviewing and reworking what I composed, and I welcome suggestions for improvement. I'm open to adding/deleting information, if it serves the overall article and is within Wiki guidelines. However, I object to using words like "devoured" as that evokes a descriptive imagery. I suggest reviewing Wiki standards about plot summaries and "in-universe" style.PNW Raven (talk)

OK. I've been looking at some of Wikipedia's style guides. Let me list them here:

• Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary
• Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Style guidelines/Copy-editing essentials#Don't lose the plot
• Wikipedia:How to streamline a plot summary
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

Here are two paragraphs they give as good examples of what you are supposed to do, after fixing the writing.

• Little Red Riding Hood is the story of a young girl's encounter with a dangerous wolf in the woods. The girl, named Little Red Riding Hood for the clothes she wears, is described as "a dear little girl who was loved by everyone who looked at her". She begins the story by trying to take some food to her ailing grandmother in the woods. She is noticed by a wolf in the forest, who wishes to eat her. The wolf's plans come to a head when he encounters Red Riding Hood in her grandmother's house, having tricked her into revealing her destination and into stopping to pick flowers, giving the wolf time to get there first and capture her grandmother. The wolf, dressed in the grandmother's clothing, lures Red Riding Hood closer. Red Riding Hood grows suspicious, noting that the wolf does not look like her grandmother, remarking "Oh, what big eyes you have" and "Oh, what large ears you have." The wolf explains all of these things tenderly, noting that the eyes are so she can see Red Riding Hood better, until Red Riding Hood remarks on the wolf's teeth, at which point the wolf springs forward to devour her. She is saved when a woodcutter happens by the cottage and hears the wolf, charges in, and kills the wolf to rescue her and her grandmother.

Of course, Little Red Riding Hood is such a short story that it's hard to summarize the plot without telling the whole thing; and it's public domain, so copyright issues don't arise from including too much detail. But notice that they have not cut the emotionally-tinged language that I've emboldened. In particular, the word "devour" is apparently perfectly fine.

• In need of money to marry her boyfriend, Sam, Marion Crane steals $40,000 from her employer and flees Phoenix, Arizona by car. While en route to Sam's California home, she parks alongside the road to sleep. The next morning, a highway patrol officer wakes her and, suspicious of Marion's agitation, follows her. When she trades her car for another at a dealership, the officer notes the new vehicle's details. Marion returns to the road but, rather than drive in a heavy storm, decides to spend the night at the Bates Motel. Norman Bates, who lives with his mother in a sinister-looking house on a hill overlooking the motel, tells Marion he rarely has customers because of the motel's disconnection from a new interstate. Marion uses an assumed name, but later unwittingly gives Norman her real one.

Less emotional language here, but note that she flees instead of merely leaves, that the highway officer's internal motivation is not left out, and in particular that the Bates' house is sinister-looking – a phrase with no purpose beyond conveying emotional impact. And this paragraph is the after-editing example given for the opening of the plot summary of Psycho.

Notice also that both paragraphs stay within the story universe. Articles on fiction are required to use a real-world perspective, but plot summaries and synopses within those articles are not. Indeed, as I've argued here, they couldn't use a real-world perspective and still function as plot summaries. Here's a quote from the Manual of Style:

In articles on individual works, the plot summary is usually described within a section labeled "Plot", "Story", or "Synopsis". This heading implicitly informs the reader that the text within it describes the fiction. For conciseness, it is thus not necessary to explicitly incorporate out-of-universe language, particularly if the work is presented in a linear, direct presentation, such as E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. It can be presumed that the work, as presented by the plot, involves fictional elements and proceeds in a straight-forward manner.

—which is somewhat at odds with this advice from the How to write a plot summary guide:

Plot summaries should be written from the real world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes").

How to reconcile these? I would suggest: when, to explain events adequately, you have use either an in-universe signpost like "but in reality..." or a real-world signpost like "but it is later revealed that...", go for the real-world one. If you can be clear and concise without any signposts, don't (under the "Plot" heading) worry about it.

The plot summary guide also recommends reordering events when it makes the cause-and-effect sequence clearer, rather than following the story's chronology. In this case, that might apply for the point that Mills' plan of moving the dinosaurs to a second island is a pretence.

The How to write a plot summary guide gives advice on what to cut as follows:

The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included in the story.

I note that the existing plot summary actually skips relevant character information by neglecting to mention that Owen and Claire's relationship has faltered since Jurassic World. As JW:FK is a recent work, it's hard to tell what's recognised as an integral or iconic part of its notability. This is a judgement call. My judgement is to include and try to explain

• scenes that appear in the trailers and are excerpted a lot in video reviews or as introductions to cast interviews – principally the scene where Owen gets into the T. rex cage; also the sinking gyrosphere
• scenes frequently mentioned by reviewers – this is of course the dying Brachiosaurus, but as long as no-one removes the sentence on it from the "Critical response" section, I'm willing to let be

By contrast, I don't think we need to include the names of the dinosaurs that attack Owen and Claire while they are separated on the island, nor the particular features of volcanic eruptions that encroach upon them – all we need to know is that they're fleeing from both dinosaur attacks and the eruption.

We have come up rather short on "themes, conflicts, and morality issues," you're quite right. What do you see as the primary themes and morals of JW:FK? And how can we ensure that they're represented in the plot summary?

As with the entire Jurassic Park franchise, there's a moral of "science and money should not attempt to play God". In JW:FK, however, this is background; the real moral question the film faces, the one that motivates the protagonists, is "Having played God already, what responsibility do we have towards our creations? What rights do our creations have before us?" That's why we have Maisie, the human clone. That's why the film goes to such lengths to evoke our sympathy for the dinosaurs.

There's a minor conflict played out both within the villains' camp and between the villains and the protagonists, over the question of scientific purity vs. other interests, with Henry Wu representing the scientific purity side – he objects to selling the Indoraptor prototype and is horrified, albeit with no particular plot consequence, to learn that his pristine enhanced Velociraptor Blue has been contaminated with T. rex blood (another reason for including that incident). Wu is the only named villain not killed onscreen during the movie, which to me looks like a message that his concerns are not to be dismissed as lightly as the other villains' low-minded greed.

Of course what I'd like to do is find some scholarly analysis that says all that already, patch together a "Themes" section, and cite it. Since I doubt that such a thing exists as yet, given how recent the film is, I'll settle for working the relevant scenes into the "Plot" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRarelyStable (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@PNW Raven:: I agree with many of the points you raised, especially with the sentiment that we should be cutting emotionally-driven prose which is at odds with the core purpose of the plot summary. Some in-universe elements are permitted, but we should be primarily writing from a real-world perspective as described at MOS:PLOT. As for "wordy sentences that are laded with multiple prepositional phrasing", we definitely need to avoid that crap as much as possible, and in fact, I've spent a lot of time breaking them up into two or more sentences as needed. However, we need to be careful that during copyediting we're not inadvertently removing material that should remain.

@VeryRarelyStable:: I think you're focusing on more than just the plot summary in your reply, but I want to point out that 4 of the 5 links you posted are either essays or advice at WP:FILM, which hold a lot less weight than what's suggested at MOS:FILM and MOS:PLOT, as the latter are guidelines. If you notice any contradictions, side with Wikipedia's MoS. Also, I agree that we don't need to unnecessarily change descriptive phrases like "devour" and "flees" if they're emphasizing how something occurred in the plot description. There's a fine line between emotionally-charged language and descriptive language that adequately places emphasis on certain actions. Using the generic phrase "leaves" in place of "flees", for example, can tell the reader two very different things about the sense of urgency. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the main reason I started this section is that I couldn't see any rhyme or reason to what was changed in the name of removing "in-universe" or "emotive" language or "minor details". And I still can't.

Why is it important to note that the Mosasaurus escapes into the ocean, but important to omit that the Indoraptor dies by impalement on a Triceratops skull? The phrase "The remaining animals die" is shorter and vaguer than "A lone Brachiosaurus is killed", but how is it any less "in-universe"? If anything, I would have said it was more "in-universe", because the Brachiosaurus actually appears on the screen, whereas "the remaining animals" do not.

Grammar points: Active voice is better than passive if all other things are equal, but very often all other things are not equal. Concision and coherence often demand that the patient of the action be the subject of the sentence. Sometimes the agent of the action is unknown, unclear, or extraneous information. In such cases the passive is best. In particular, dispassionate factual writing, such as encyclopaedic writing, should not fear the passive.

Also, there's no rule in grammar that a paragraph can only have one sentence. That's something they teach kids in school so that they don't write gigantic, rambling, paragraph-length sentences. If you have a piece of information that's separate enough from the rest to merit its own paragraph, but can be concisely conveyed in a single sentence, a single-sentence paragraph is fine.

I'll try and jimmy up a draft in the next 24 hours. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Stating that the "Mosasaurus escapes into the ocean" isn't a very important detail, since it doesn't impact the plot in this film. We can have a conversation about omitting that from the summary and see if anyone else opposes. However, describing in detail about how the Indoraptor dies is unnecessary. In a short summary with limited space, we should be prudent to avoid insignificant detail. The reader has nothing to gain by knowing that it was impaled on a Triceratops skull. In fact, introducing that might make one wonder why the skull was there in the first place, and since we're not taking the time to explain that the glass roof was over a large room full of dinosaur exhibits, it can seem somewhat random. And as far as the Brachiosaurus statement, I wasn't the one who modified that, but I have to admit it sounds better now without it.

As for single-sentence paragraphs, the tendency in professional writing is to avoid them. Sometimes they're necessary, but they should be used sparingly. Personally, if I see an opportunity to extend it to at least two sentences, I'll take that opportunity every time. It's a moot point, however, now that we're no longer faced with that issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the draft: User:VeryRarelyStable/sandbox#Plot

Will annotate my edits at that page probably tomorrow. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the mosasaurus escaping, I side with removing that part entirely. It may play into the next sequel, but other than a brief shot of it at the end of the film, it does not figure into the story line. If it stays in, then I think it should be clarified that it escapes into the ocean as it is no doubt unclear to some readers that this is a marine animal that is unable to navigate on land. It did not pull itself out of the tank and then hop, skip, or scoot its way to open water. I'd compare it to dolphin as opposed to a seal. However, I vote for removing that bit of information entirely.PNW Raven (talk)

As long as no one opposes, I too agree to remove the entire statement about the Mosasaurus escaping. It may factor into the next film's plot, but it can be described at that film's article instead of in this one. As for the draft, VeryRarelyStable, thanks for putting that together. You have buy-in from me to edit there instead of at the main article until we reach a final version that we all agree on, but is PNW Raven on board? Already since your draft was created, several more changes have been made in the article. Unless we have buy-in from the main participants, the draft isn't going to do anything for us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, VeryRarelyStable, I noticed your draft includes detail about the Triceratops skull despite opposition to it above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable's draft has some good components, but as it is now, I don't favor replacing what's already written with the new one at this point. PNW Raven (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that as well. Originally, the idea was to offload a lot of these back-and-forth edits to some draft space away from the article. But in the time it took to get the draft going, I think the edits have settled down. The version we have now is quite complete in my opinion. I wouldn't favor any major restructuring at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not the fall that kills the Indoraptor, which is what I would have believed if I had not seen the film. Not mentioning the Triceratops skull misleads people into believing the Indoraptor died differently than it actually did. I think the skull is worth mentioning for accuracy. It can simply be stated that the skull is "on display in Lockwood's museum of dinosaur skeletons" or even just "on display in a room of dinosaur skeletons." I also suggest restoring something that was removed a while back: the part about the auctioned dinosaurs being shipped off to new owners around the world. This is what makes the Earth a Jurassic World, as Malcolm suggests at the end. It's a big detail to leave out. Otherwise, it's primarily just dinosaurs in northern California. The Mosasaurus escape is part of the idea of Isla Nublar's creatures escaping into the world and causing trouble. The last line in the current plot reads: "The closing scene shows dinosaurs roaming wilderness and urban areas." A brief mention of the Mosasaurus (which is not a dinosaur) could be added in there. Maybe something like this: "The freed dinosaurs, as well as the escaped Mosasaurus, are shown roaming wilderness and urban areas."  AJFU  (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether you believe it was from the fall itself or landing on the skull, neither will impact how you understand the sequence of events surrounding the plot. The fact that Blue intervened is a significant detail. The glass roof, the fall, and everything else surrounding its death are trivial details. Someone wanting a complete recap of the each major event would expect to read that detail, but someone wanting the basic gist of the plot does not need it. It's a good point that I hadn't thought of, so I'm glad you mentioned it, but I'm still leaning against its inclusion. Thoughts from anyone else? --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also a good point about the Mosasaurus. Since it isn't a dinosaur, the last line in the plot summary doesn't do it justice. The part about it escaping into the ocean should only remain if the last line is modified to include the Mosasaurus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The main points that I tried to get into my draft and would still like to see in the article, in descending order of importance:

• The Tyrannosaurus blood transfusion is not a minor incident; it's the climactic point of a narrative thread that starts with the shooting of Blue and goes all the way through to the confrontation with Wu.
• It is not necessary to specify that Claire and Frank evade a Baryonyx attack, since they evade so many other things in the same sequence. Owen at the same time evades some kind of predator as well as a lava-flow, both rightly not specified here. Certainly the Baryonyx is a far more minor plot element than the blood transfusion.
• Phrases like "Claire meets with Lockwood", "The rescue group meets Ken Wheatley", "Claire and Frank reunite with Owen" are wastes of word-limit. If a group of people do something together the reader can infer that they have met each other first.
• Wikipedia's style guides recommend revealing information at the point where it is relevant, not at the point where it was revealed in the story, if these two points are different. In this movie that applies to the reveals that the sanctuary is a deception and that Maisie is a clone.
• "Six months after the events of Jurassic World" better complies with real-world perspective than "Six months after the theme park incident on Isla Nublar".
• The death of the Indoraptor is the climax of the whole movie. Not only that, but the trope where a character or creature falls apparently to their death, and then turns out to be alive after all, is so commonly used it's almost a convention. Mentioning the Triceratops skull impalement clarifies that this is not going to happen this time.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well stated. I agree with your analysis, all except for the skull which I feel is a subjective clarification that some might need but others do not. I appear to be in the minority on that one, however, so I won't stand in the way of its inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, just wanted to point out that the true motives (exploiting the dinosaurs for profit) is not apparent to the audience until after Maisie overhears Mills and Eversol's conversation. The main characters (Owen/Claire) don't realize until after they see the auction with their own eyes. Also, "due to the transfusion" isn't necessary. We were just told about the transfusion in the previous paragraph. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I again deleted the part about the Indoraptor being impaled. There is no reason to include this. The Indo is killed in the fall. It is dead. That does not leave open the possibility that it might still be alive. Saying that this is ambiguous because it is not specifically stated that it was fatally impaled on the skull is a weak argument for keeping someone who wants to retain their favored phrasing that adds nothing to the article. If anything, it adds confusion as to where did this skull come from. Why it there? That is unnecessary information. I also reworked some awkward phrasing about the dinosaur disrupting the auction. PNW Raven (talk)

Like I mentioned above, I agree with the skull being axed from the summary. As for the auction being disrupted, there are a lot of ways to write that, and here are the two that we keep going back and forth on:

Option 1: "Owen maneuvers a Stygimoloch into breaking open their cell ... Owen lures the Stygimoloch into the auction, disrupting it."

Option 2: "Owen maneuvers a Stygimoloch into breaking open their cell ... The freed Stygimoloch disrupts the auction with Owen's guidance."

I think Option 2 looks better in the context of the statement that came two sentences earlier. Saying "Owen maneuvers" closely followed by "Owen lures" are somewhat repetitive and less interesting of a read, in my opinion. Plus, you have to introduce a comma in your preferred version. I try to avoid that when possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Option 2 version just does not work, and the sentence structure is weak. Saying Owen "guides" the dino into the auction sounds like he's gently leading it into the room as it obediently follows him in, which is hardly the case.PNW Raven (talk)

I wouldn't call option 2 weak, but perhaps it is a bit weaker. I noticed your recent edit made an attempt to satisfy this concern. I was actually going to suggest something similar, so I'm good with it. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the previous option really worked well. Hopefully, my recent edit works and has a better flow to it.PNW Raven (talk)

Last Velociraptor?

I am wondering about something unrelated to our previous discussions. Is Blue actually the "last living" velociraptor? Whatever happened to the dinosaurs on Isla Sorna (from Jurassic Park 3). There were raptors still living there. Has there been any explanation about what's going on at the other island or has it just disappeared from the reboot's cannon?PNW Raven (talk)

It's not mentioned in the film, but the Dinosaur Protection Group website states that the dinosaurs on Isla Sorna mostly died off, with the survivors being moved to Isla Nublar to become part of Jurassic World. Sorna is abandoned, according to the website. In the film, I believe Mills says that Blue is "the last of her kind."  AJFU  (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I recall that being stated in the film as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I totally missed that when I saw the film. PNW Raven (talk)