Talk:Jurassic World Rebirth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jurassic World Rebirth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

On 28 July 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Jurassic World: Rebirth. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

 https://yipzap.com/news/jurassic-world-rebirth-stomps-through-box-office-with--318m-in-6-days
box office  collection  and budget — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0912farzi (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as unreliable and a block evasion. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant prose

The phrase "on the island of Île Saint-Hubert" is just bad writing. Île is island in French, so unless there is an island within an island in the film (which, I admit, I have not watched), this should be rephrased. Perhaps "on Saint-Hubert Island"?

Oulipal (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone sequel?

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]

Years in plot

There has been some back and forth about when the film is set. The actual movie, through onscreen text, says the opening takes place 17 years ago, and then "Present day" for everything after that. This would set it three years after the events of Dominion (2022), not five, and therefore 2025 rather than 2027.

The confusion seems to stem from an old plot synopsis that came out nearly a year before the movie was released, before it even finished filming. Maybe the intention at one point was to set it in the future and then the idea was scrapped, or maybe the synopsis was simply wrong to begin with. In any event, the movie is clear about when it takes place. AJFU (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's kind of an odd anomaly. The problem, of course, is that practically every source describes it as "five years" after Dominion, including but not limited to EW, SlashFilm, and TheWrap. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like such sources are simply getting this number from the same synopsis. Since a plot section generally sticks to what is in the actual movie, then I'm guessing this movie's "Seventeen years ago"/present day" text would take precedence over anything else, right? Maybe a few hidden notes in the plot section will help prevent any future confusion. AJFU (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of previous films

Hello @AdamDeanHall: Why is it necessary to bring up events from past films that Rebirth itself doesn't mention at all? The events of Jurassic Park III are not brought up, never mind Eric Kirby. The Jurassic World incident isn't mentioned either. Furthermore, your edit mentions a Biosyn incident that caused the transgenic locust outbreak. I don't recall any Biosyn-related incident preceding the outbreak.

Anyway, none of this has any impact on this movie's plot. It all seems like irrelevant clutter. AJFU (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slutty little glasses?

I came here hoping to read more about this phenomenon and was surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet! (As an overview, the glasses worn by Jonathan Bailey's character in the film—dubbed "slutty little glasses" by internet personality Blakely Thornton—became a viral internet sensation before the film was even released, eventually resulting in a collaborative charitable marketing campaign by the eyewear brand Cubitts and Bailey's LGBTQ+ charity, The Shameless Fund.) It seems like every other review on Letterboxd references this phrase and it's certainly being written about by fashion and LGBTQ+ journalists, so it seems worth including here. It could maybe go in Marketing, Release, or Reception? Sorry I'm not taking the time to add it to the article now, but here are some potential sources if someone else wants to work on it: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] -FrogUnderALilyPad (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 July 2025

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: 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]

Oppose any move attempts. Per the official website and the billing block on this poster, this film's title does not include a colon. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the film's title doesn't have a colon. There's no reason for this. Vestrian24Bio 16:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In IMDb name is Jurassic World: Rebirth 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable source as it contains user-generated content, per WP:IMDB/RS. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101 I understand that but doesn't that make Wikipedia consider itself unreliable? Spectritus (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does source vetting and itself is not a source, because we use reliable sources as explained at WP:Reliable sources. IMDb is just one site out of countless others, and no site holds more weight than any other. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And regardless of reliability concerns, even if we accept it, there are dozens (potentially hundreds) more that aren't using the colon. A handful using the colon doesn't change the conversation. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:19, 30 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]

Oppose – beyond reasons stated above, the vast majority of references used in the article omit the colon. Grammar rules rarely apply to article titling, however if you believe there is a specific wiki policy that supports your positon, feel free to cite it. TiggerJay (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Despite arguments against from others above, I actually would support a colon if a significant majority of independent sources use it, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The first 10-15 high-quality sources I checked did not use one. Our policies & guidelines don't give any extra weight to official names, nor do we give any extra weight to external style guides. We would simply follow the styling used by a majority of sources as long as it doesn't conflict with our MoS. There's just no reason to in this case. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The official spelling is without a colon, see for example the title on the official website of Universal, the title of the official trailer and the title on the producer's official website. RuedNL2 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The colon is intentionally missing, as the title suggests the Rebirth of Jurassic World. This debate shouldn't become like the Star Trek Into Darkness debate. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the colon is intentionally missing, it is not to suggest the Rebirth of Jurassic World, as Jurassic World Dominion's colon is also missing. It's just a simplified titling system they're now using. 207.194.98.152 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: We should be using the official title 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) 06:08, 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.