‘Jurassic World’ Image & Artwork Hint at New Dinosaur

Published 10 months ago by

jurassic world set 20 years after jurassic park Jurassic World Image & Artwork Hint at New Dinosaur

Jurassic World – the fourth installment in the Jurassic Park franchise – doesn’t arrive until next June, but we’ve already gotten an early look at the human characters making their screen debut in the film. There’s also going to be at least one never before seen dinosaur featured in the movie – and although it’ll probably be a while still before we see the creature in full, director Colin Trevorrow has taken to Twitter to offer his followers what may well be a sneak peek at the new beastie.

Trevorrow has confirmed that Jurassic World revolves around a functional version of Jurassic Park that is operating in the present-day. However, the resort/biological preserve has also been around long enough for the general public to no longer be as entranced as once they were, with the variety of once-prehistoric lifeforms that are on display.

As such, Trevorrow has revealed that in the film, the park’s scientists are given a “corporate mandate”: create something “bigger, louder, with more teeth,” which is meant to wow the public and help re-ignite faltering interest in the dino-themed amusement park (though, we’re betting the decision ends up having some undesirable consequences). It could well be that this new genetically-engineered specimen is the dinosaur teased in the Jurassic World set image featured below, which Trevorrow posted to his Twitter account with the simple caption of “Nights.”


jurassic world new dinosaur image 620x370 Jurassic World Image & Artwork Hint at New Dinosaur

For those who missed it, here’s the extended version of what Trevorrow previously had to say, about the new dinosaur that’ll be introduced in Jurassic World:

“… The gaps in her sequence were filled with DNA from other species, much like the genome in the first film was completed with frog DNA. This creation exists to fulfill a corporate mandate—they want something bigger, louder, with more teeth. And that’s what they get.

“I know the idea of a modified dinosaur put a lot of fans on red alert, and I understand it. But we aren’t doing anything here that [Michael] Crichton didn’t suggest in his novels. This animal is not a mutant freak. It doesn’t have a snake’s head or octopus tentacles. It’s a dinosaur, created in the same way the others were, but now the genetics have gone to the next level. For me, it’s a natural evolution of the technology introduced in the first film. Maybe it sounds crazy, but most of my favorite movies sound crazy when you describe them in a single sentence.”

It was previously rumored that an early draft of the Jurassic World script – one that is reported to have since been heavily revised by Trevorrow and screenwriter Derek Connolly (Safety Not Guaranteed) – included “underwater dinos” – and, judging by some of the film’s artwork featured at the Licensing Expo in Las Vegas this week (see below, via Coming Soon), that looks to still be the case. Could it be that the “modified dinosaur” teased by Trevorrow and the one hinted at in the latest set image, are one and the same as the aquatic creature shown here, with the “It’s Feeding Time!” tagline? (Their jawlines certainly seem alike.)


jurassic world dinosaur art 620x370 Jurassic World Image & Artwork Hint at New Dinosaur

Trevorrow has also revealed that one of the central themes explored in Jurassic World is the idea that “we’ve become numb to the scientific miracles around us,” in modern times. It’s a worthwhile concept to explore and one that’s new territory for the Jurassic Park franchise. It also lends a meta aspect to the Jurassic World storyline, as we live in a time where blockbusters have gotten increasingly big and flashy in their presentation – to the point where many moviegoers are not so easily blown away by the tentpoles that Hollywood has to offer, especially those that sacrifice coherence for scale.

Will Jurassic World manage to astonish as Steven Spielberg’s film once did – or, failing that, prove that there’s still a fair amount of life left in the Jurassic Park brand? That remains to be seen, though we like what we’ve heard and seen from Trevorrow’s dino adventure thus far, which is encouraging.


Jurassic World opens in U.S. theaters on June 12th, 2015.

Source: Colin Trevorrow, Coming Soon

Follow Sandy Schaefer on Twitter @feynmanguy
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I can’t wait!!!!

  2. When i saw this film back in the 1990′s it was in only thx certified movie theater in
    my area. speilberg was fortunate this movie had incredible sound because had he
    spent the kind of money spent on terminator 2 we would have gotten more then 15
    minutes of dinosaur. Jurassic park was one of biggest cash grabs ever at suckering in
    people to the movie theater including me. 900 million worldwide for 15 minutes insane.

    • Strange… my excellent copy of Jurassic Park is 127 minutes long. I only watched it last weekend for the 20th time or so, and it still holds up extremely well to all the mindnumbing “Action Only” garbage out there. It’s a great movie with fun characters and interesting topics, that builds up to the hightlight scenes so effectively that it works every time. Then again, I was expecting a real movie with all the bells and whistles and not just a dinosaur effects reel. Let me guess, you didn’t like Godzilla either, right?

      • rod22 is a pretty great example of a collective of moviegoers wrapped up in one body. The people who claim they love movies but when it comes down to it, they find any excuse to hate great things and enjoy things that have no business even being considered, let alone turned into a film.

        Jurassic Park (and this year’s Godzilla since you brought it up) do the kind of job that has become lost on modern audiences that I wish were used more often in film. The idea of teasing something one piece at a time, first through dialogue, then through a brief shot of “something” before building that tension until the final release when you get a full body shot of whatever the movie is about in all its glory.

        The problem is, most moviegoers now (rod22 included apparently) are part of the main issue that films (and TV) have right now. The temptation to just throw everything at the screen from the start in the hope of catching viewers because their attention spans have diminished significantly in a world where we can have anything we want information wise at our fingertips within seconds and the true art of film-making has become lost because those of us who enjoy 100 minutes of teasing a creature and 5 minutes of actually seeing our patience pay off near the end in all its fabulous glory are becoming a dying breed who have to put up with low box office sales and negative reviews due solely to a growing impatience with complaints of “I paid to see an X movie so I expected it to be wall to wall X from opening titles to end credits, I want my money back, this film sucked”.

        It’s intolerable and incredibly annoying, especially when studios pander to those people and either deny future sequels or else just dumb things down and put wall to wall (dinosaurs/Godzilla/whatever) for the entire run time just to appease the complainers and try to guarantee billions more dollars in the process while tossing away coherent plot and memorable characters.

        • Also, unrelated but still….

          Colin Firth’s left the Paddington film claiming he wasn’t able to find the right voice to do the bear justice.

        • rod22 (as an example and nothing personal) is representative, absolutely, of the A.D.D. generation of film goers raised at the teet of the now corporation-run, reboot-happy branding entities which used to be called movie studios.

          Spectacle is all they care about. They simply don’t understand the concept of a FILM. Or watching a story unfold.

          Or use of commas.


        • Well said.

        • rod22 seems like exactly the kind of audience being catered to by the Jurassic Park fictional management in HP4, Give them more, more, more.

        • I have been preaching this point for years. They want it all in the first 10 mins of the movie so they can text selfies of them in the theater to their friends and post on FB. The art of film making is seriously hurting. They just don’t get it anymore and its all about profit.

        • Very well stated. I couldn’t agree more. One of my favorite films is “JAWS”, and for me, the suspense was greatly intensified due to the fact that we were only given a brief glimpse of the shark until the last half of the film. I would consider this to be the cinematic equivalent of foreplay, with a satisfying climax. Films that start off hot and heavy, full of the sound and fury, ultimately signify nothing, with a flaccid ending. Which is not any fun for all involved, no doubt failing to entice us in wasting our time with another romp in a dark cinema.

          I sometimes fear what the next generation of filmmakers have in store for us. But I am always hopeful.

    • 15 minutes of Dinosaur? Are you serious? The kitchen scene is almost 10 minutes alone, as is the T-Rex scene. This is excluding the Galimimus, Dilophosaur and both Brachiosaur scenes. They are then frequently chased by dinosaurs throughout the rest of the movie, especially in the last 20 minutes so I don’t know which Jurassic Park movie you saw.

  3. Frightening, really can’t wait! Jurassic Park is one of the best films of all time with the sequels not being as good, though still being entertaining as heck. With what we’ve been hearing and seeing (the few set photos), it’s looking like Treverrow is recapturing the magic! Really hoping he pulls this off.

  4. 1. while the critics praised the sound and special effects and visuals the story was
    heavily criticized.
    2. i had no problem with the casting and everything i mentioned above but the story
    3. spielberg is known for going as low on a budget as possible to maximize his personal
    profits as a director. He could have at least matched t2′s budget to give us a better show.
    i used to own jp 1 and 2 until my friends found the movies too boring to watch and
    Got good money for them before walmart put them on 5.00

    • What could he have done with a higher budget to “give us a better show”? Especially when he gave us a spectacular movie anyway. What more could he have done in your opinion to improve on what’s already a great piece of cinema?

      How would throwing more money generate more excitement anyway? Is that your answer to everything you find boring, “just throw money at it”? Would The Godfather have been improved by having less talking and more high-budget special effects?

      If only Charlie Chaplin had stopped screwing around with silent movies and put more money into the budget, we’d have seen his little tramp character fighting off CGI beasts in a far more exciting battle while spaceships flew overhead firing lasers and destroying all sorts of well-known cities to the sound of Jack Teagarden’s trombone playing a fast-paced jazz score.

      • Dazz. Perfectly said.

      • now that he said it. Totally right. Chaplin was such a ripoff. They even went as far as to create one of the first true special effects when that house hung down the cliff in Goldrush. Could’ve done way more, as i.e. add some sarlacc pit with a million tentacles at the bottom to raise the tension. Also King Kong was actually a poor sorry excuse to just tell a boring story instead of going all effects

    • Your attacks on Spielberg are extremely juvenile. Please stop. The man is a master filmmaker. Stating he uses less of a budget implies that he is fully in control of said allotment of budget. People forget that when Spielberg made JP he was also right in the middle of production (pre or post I forget) on Schindler’s List. Another one of the greatest films of all time. Full Stop.

      Further Jurassic Park was also extremely risky. He was lucky to get the budget that he got because it was completely untested. In fact when first gearing up for it the plan was to use Stop Motion dinosaurs. It was only the guys over at ILM going rogue that convinced him CGI was viable. It was a true pioneer moment in Cinema.

      The return on the box office was not guaranteed.

      Further unlike so many other movies from that era, Jurassic Park holds up not because of the spectacle. But because its a great story, beautifully told. The FX are beautifully rendered, the characters developed and articulated. Its a modern classic (holy crap that makes me feel old, I saw it in theaters) because of quality.

      So stop complaining about a nonsensical conspiracy that Spielberg is trying to make money by using a lower budget. The man gets paid out of the gross. Budget isn’t in his radar for money. He’s already worth billions. Freaking chill.

  5. I couldn’t agree more with all of the above replies to Rod22′s comments regarding Jurassic Park. I fully believe Trevorrow will do this franchise justice. If he can come close to half of what Jurassic Park created the film will be successful in my eyes. JP is a modern classic, and it’s a film I’ve watched more than 20 times. The idea is not to reveal immediately but provide backdrop and truly give the characters life, not just the dinosaurs. If you want to watch a movie that involves nothing but action and destruction and not a true “film” like when Spielberg truly captured then just stick to Sharknado.

  6. Trevorrow certainly can talk the talk. I like what he’s saying so I’ll patiently wait for a trailer.

  7. Duuuuuuuuuuuude underwater dinos would be absolutely terrifying!! (if done right) I’m psyched for this. Hopefully it delivers.

  8. Everyone its the spino not the d-rex. There is a rumor of a possible trex vs spino rematch. And this pic definatly looks like the spinos jaw

  9. I really liked the Jurassic Park movies,they where pretty fun thrill rides kind of movies,but now that we have a new 21st century GODZILLA,I have to say,for me at least,I’m bored of dinosaurs. I’m sure a new Jurassic Park movie will be fine,but as far as giant-monster movies,I will stand behind Godzilla(2014) as one of my all-time favorites,and I’m totally hyped and ready for Godzilla 2 and 3,in the near future.

    • personally i think the premise is far more interesting that godzilla. while i liked that film too i feel we have far too many giant monster movies. how far can they really go besides big monster smash smash.

      the concept of Jurassic park is still interesting for me because of all the various species of dinosaur (aka monster) to potentially see on screen. not all are aggressive, they might attack each other, eat the tourists, some are massive and destroy buildings, some can chase you in a tight corridor, oh and underwater dinosaurs! there’s so much potential and i haven’t even begun about ideas of zoo keepers tending to animals, tourists feeding a triceratops, scientists playing god, oh and having to escape the damn island again!

  10. Even though I may be “bored” with dinosaurs,does not mean that I won’t see this movie,I will see it at least once,and I’m sure I will like it,but just like the previous movies,I won’t love them,Godzilla(2014) on the other hand is one for the ages,as far a modern monster movies go,at least,but that is just MY opinion.

    • Godzilla 2014 was amazing. But whats wrong with having both. Why do u only need one awesome monster movie. Theres a 100 different super hero movies and no one complains

  11. I pray that’s just the plesiosaur and not some freaking crocodile monstrosity hybrid. Treverrow really has me worried about this “new” Dino. Sounds like something a 5 year old boy with autism would come up with and try to show their friends as “cool”.

    And Crichton already HAD the best new dino to introduce, the Carnotaurus! It was like a chameleon with the devil horns and could blend in with trees. It was incredibly suspenseful storytelling when that thing was around. I think there were 2 of them in The Lost World too.

    • Alas, the upper jaw in the shadow image strongly suggests a crocodilian.

    • So basically, you’re insulting people with autism? That’s like saying “all Americans are dumb”, which is completely untrue and would be insulting to all Americans. None of my American friends or family members are intellectually challenged and neither are those I know with various levels of autism (myself included).

      Autistic 5 year old boys would be more inclined to complain that they weren’t using a dinosaur that actually existed before reeling off a long list of dinos that could be an antagonist instead of a hybrid creature that Frankenstein various animals for the sake of impressing people. Autistic people generally don’t tend to give a damn what others think because it’s unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

    • The Jurassic Park series already has mutant dinos. The most noticeable example was the Dilophosaurus, with its neck frill and spitting venom. Other examples include the Pteranodons with teeth in JP3 (ironic because the name “Pteranodon” means “toothless wing”), and the featherless and oversized Velociraptors. So the presence of a new mutant dinosaur will still be consistent with what we’ve seen in the previous three films.

      • The movie actually confused Utahraptor with Velociraptors, Utahraptor are the largest known Raptor to date, standing at a nice 25feet long from nose to tip. They were discovered in Utah, ware doctor grant was scaring that brat of a boy with his Dino claw. Velociraptors are from china. Not the states ware grant was digging. However the movie used Velociraptor to call there raptors because, they had a better fallowing.

        Considering that science has just in the last ten years accepted that most if not all dino’s were feathered, the movie pre dates such sciences.

        Jurassic world, to the moaning of every dino buff and scientist, has decided to ignore what science has to offer, still trying to play on the basis the older movies portrayed. As for the winged dino’s those were not Pteranodon, they were Pterodactylus which had teeth. It was also popular to put a head crest on them. As it boosted popularity.

        That being said the information that we have to day, and movie makers mistaking or calling things by names more popular though, and were modeled after something else. lived true in the first, second, and third films. Also there were frilled dino’s whether or not they spit venom is totally up to debate.

        We after all do have a frilled lizard which the speculate to be its descendant.

        Clearing that up, so totally stoked for another favorite movie, the addition of the mosasaurus , the dino in the tank, in the trailers. Is bound to be a real treat.

  12. Really running things now. So much for scientific accuracey.

  13. I’ll probably give this a watch eventually on Netflix, but it is not very high up my priority list.

  14. Awesome!

  15. It’s an interesting photo to guess what other gene they could have inserted besides frog DNA. On one hand, it looks like they added crocodile DNA being the lower jaw looks exactly like a crocodiles and the upper jaw also very much resembles various crocodilian species. Which would all add to the “bigger, more teeth, louder” aspect for a new dino.

    However, another possibility to look at…they said “bigger, louder, more teeth”…far as we know, JP has afforded us T-Rex and Spinosaurus. Both are big, loud, and have rows of sharp teeth. Maybe this new dinosaur is a T-Rex with Spino DNA/a Spino with T-Rex DNA. Which would be similar to our current Ligers. Then it’s like you got to ultimate apex predators on the island, two fan favorite, combined as one massive, terrifying, smart dinosaur! The possibilities are endless but I would love to see one of those predictions be correct.

    Heck! Then we could see a Spino/Rex team up battle against this Spionsaurus Rex abomination!

    • The new dino is called a diabolus rex. Its a cross between a trex, raptor, snake, and cuttlefish. If u google image diabolus rex theres a fan art pic that looks legit

  16. Looks like a Liopleurodon.

  17. So long as an Alpha Trex tears it to shreds at the end and re-establishes itself as the dominant anti-hero, I don’t give 2 **** if it has kitchen sink DNA. This “+1″ storytelling gets so lazy and boring.

    This series jumped the shark when the Trex bit down on the Spinosaur’s neck/vertebrae with thousands of lbs of bite force and got shrugged off like a bug. The series alienated a lot of people and immaculated itself at that point. Frankensaur only work with proper loyalty to the real dinosaurs and source material, otherwise Frankensaur is just a Tacky Hollywood Gimmick.

  18. I suppose it makes sense to show aquatic & underwater predators. It’s fair to make a some genetically enhanced creature however I still think it would be important to show animals that really did exist, & they wouldn’t have to have a major role in the movie either. Beyond seeing Spinosaurus again I think some other neat predators I’d like to at least see are: Carcharodontosaurus or Gigantosaurus, Therizinosaurus, Pliosaurus (aka predator x), Megalodon (giant shark), Sarcosuchus (giant crocodile), Titanoboa (giant snake). I’m probably forgetting some other one.
    The first creature I thought of from that image was Liopleurodon. I suppose Raptors may be played out but I’d still like to see them. As others have said there have already been inaccuracies like Velociraptor size, however there is a raptor known as Utahraptor that is around the size as the raptor shown in the movie but I don’t think it was really known about them when the original film came out, also just like the word Cretaceous doesn’t sound as cool as Jurassic, nor would Utah as oppose to Veloci.
    I suppose an interesting hybrid creature to me would be something that humans throughout history have already thought about, something with the wings like Hatzegopteryx or Quetzalcoatlus, able to move on ground, able to enter water, but I’ll leave out the shooting fire part. I don’t know if dragons have been played out already, but some Serpent/dragon like intelligent genetically-engineered creature I think could be a pretty neat predator on screen. It reminds me of this fictional Discovery channel special called: Dragons – A Fantasy Made Real, about what if dragons were real. Again I don’t mind the fiction/fantasy but I still think it’d be important to show animals that really did exist as well.

  19. I’m not so sure about this movie after hearing tamed dinosaurs might be in this. tamed dinos sounds fake and dumb imo

    • There are no tamed dinos. The director has already debunked that rumor. He explained that they are studying the raptors to see how much they are like humans in the way they think.

  20. I don’t watch these movies because of people getting eaten. I watch the movie because I love dinosaurs I and I respect them. In fact, I’m probably the only one who does. It actually is the whole point of the movies, don’t mess with nature. There dangerous, and should be left alone in their environment. I guess that would take out the joy, but I’d still would like to see these animals coping with each other like in the scene in the third movie, before the river scene with spinosaurus.

    And I don’t think anyone should bad mouth the special effects about the Jurassic Park movies because all the monster movies today like(no offense) Age of the Dinosaurs or that two headed shark movie are just cheap using complete CGI and no animatronics. I’m not saying you have to use animontronics, I’m just saying if your a movie tala east make it good or realistic. Jurassic Park is a classic God Dammit, so respect it! If you don’t like it that’s fine, a lot people don’t like dinosaurs, but at least apprecciate the fact that someone put the work for the movie that you watch(I sound like one of those old folks who get to attached to their movies).

    But I do appreciate the fact that they’re continuing a sequel to a great trilogy. But obviously the new dinosaur is a crocodile creature, just look at its jaws. The upper jaw looks like spinosaurus, and the lower jaw looks crocodillian-like. It could be half deinosuchus, half spinosaurus, half dimetrodon. It’s highly unlikely it is an actual dinosaur that existed. But I hope it’s nothing like those monster movies like sharktopus or pteracuda.

    In conclusion, I find it right to go to the movie theater, shut up, and enjoy the movie. I don’t care if the movie I’m watching sucks or not. Besides I don’t even go to the theaters that often, and anyway the ticket from we’re I come from is only 4$(I don’t find that as a rip off) instead of four cents. But in the future it’ll cost probably 40$.
    But I am super excited about this movie!

    P. S. I’d hate for the movie to be envolved.

  21. I meant military

  22. It’s definitely not going to be an aquatic dinosaur. That would make for a pretty weak plot, since humans are primarily land-dwelling creatures.