Wouldn't it be cool?

[BLACK_HAWK94]

If like in the novel, TellTale implimented the Infant Tyrannosaur that killed Regis?
Like perhaps show a charactor who stumbles upon the infant eating his corpse?

[Tyrannosaur87]

Originally Posted by BLACK_HAWK94

If like in the novel, TellTale implimented the Infant Tyrannosaur that killed Regis?
Like perhaps show a charactor who stumbles upon the infant eating his corpse?

While that would be cool, Telltale wasn't able to license the use of the novels. They only have the rights to the films.

Now that's not needless to say we won't stumble upon another dinosaur eating the corpse of a park employee or something though. It does appear that we will get a glimpse of what's left of Nedry.

[jurassiraptor]

I wonder how it is they are able to license the movies, but not the novels. You'd think since the novels were fully sold to Universal for the movies, that if you licensed the movies you'd get a two-fer on the source material as well. I know I've seen other JP games, comic books, etc. based on the movies that reference or contain element of the novels before.

[Tyrannosaur87]

Originally Posted by jurassiraptor

I wonder how it is they are able to license the movies, but not the novels. You'd think since the novels were fully sold to Universal for the movies, that if you licensed the movies you'd get a two-fer on the source material as well. I know I've seen other JP games, comic books, etc. based on the movies that reference or contain element of the novels before.

Hard to say. Maybe Universal gave the rights back to the Chrichton family after his death, or it's possible that Universal didn't feel the novels were necessary to be part of the package deal when Telltale sought the rights to the game. Personally I'd love to see games based on the novels to give that familiar yet new feel to the story.

[Sinaz20]

It could just be that Universal only optioned the books for movies at the time, so the only IP they have to license on to videogames are the movies themselves.

They likely don't own all the rights to the book.

[Ofnir]

What Shinaz describes wouldn't surprise me. That's fairly common in the book->movie field of films. For example: Peter Jackson and Newline jointly own the Lord of the Rings as far as movie franchises go. The Tolkien estate owns the books. It's also how they were able to change from Newline for the coming Hobbit movies. The new company (can't remember who it is...I think Universal, but don't quote me on that) was going to have someone else direct and the I.P. owners on the Tolkien side said movie rights were contingent on Jackson directing.

Then you add in the added difficult layer for figuring these things out: IP rights revert after a period of time, and eventually go public domain and/or open to reserving rights if they don't have a production run every so often.

[Bombillazo]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

It could just be that Universal only optioned the books for movies at the time, so the only IP they have to license on to videogames are the movies themselves.

They likely don't own all the rights to the book.

One thing I dont get about this. Where is the line drawn between what you get from the novels and your ideas? Do you sometimes go and say "You know what, this would be AWESOME!" before someone says "Sorry, its been done in the novels".

I mean certain concepts and events in the novel can be pretty broad and generic, I'm just worried how this can impact the story you guys want to tell due to seemingly petty restriction.

[BLACK_HAWK94]

Originally Posted by Bombillazo

One thing I dont get about this. Where is the line drawn between what you get from the novels and your ideas? Do you sometimes go and say "You know what, this would be AWESOME!" before someone says "Sorry, its been done in the novels".

I mean certain concepts and events in the novel can be pretty broad and generic, I'm just worried how this can impact the story you guys want to tell due to seemingly petty restriction.

Explain more?

[tope1983]

Does this probably mean that EVERYTHING which isn't used in the movie but somehow in the novel is NOT LICENSED?

eg.: the raft-on-the-jungle-river scene.
even if TELLTALE do not use Grant and the kids on the raft but instead somehow Harding or some other characters try to use the jungle river and ride in a raft...even if that is the case, it could be ILLEGAL because it's a novel-element which wasn't used in the movies and thus TTG do not have the rights to implement that?

or underground tunnels? or the safari hotel? is that movie or is it only novel canon? has the safari hotel to look different than it is described in the novels because it has only been mentionend in the movie-brochure but never been shown?

is a juvenile t-rex also novel-ized and thus not permitted to use?

what about the aviary itself? it appeared only in the novel....

maybe someone can clear some things up for me thanks!

[BLACK_HAWK94]

Originally Posted by tope1983

Does this probably mean that EVERYTHING which isn't used in the movie but somehow in the novel is NOT LICENSED?

eg.: the raft-on-the-jungle-river scene.
even if TELLTALE do not use Grant and the kids on the raft but instead somehow Harding or some other characters try to use the jungle river and ride in a raft...even if that is the case, it could be ILLEGAL because it's a novel-element which wasn't used in the movies and thus TTG do not have the rights to implement that?

or underground tunnels? or the safari hotel? is that movie or is it only novel canon? has the safari hotel to look different than it is described in the novels because it has only been mentionend in the movie-brochure but never been shown?

is a juvenile t-rex also novel-ized and thus not permitted to use?

what about the aviary itself? it appeared only in the novel....

maybe someone can clear some things up for me thanks!

My guess is that they can use Novel ideas.
The JP license is prolly mainly to use the environment, Dinosaur models and sounds etc. Thats my guess though.

[Sinaz20]

We just can't go breaking movie canon by superseding it with novel canon because it has to fit the continuity of Universal's properties (except where artistic license is concerned... like Harding's mustache and pot belly.)

Like, we can't refer to Hammond being dead at the end of the original JP. We can't refer to Grant escaping the T-Rex under the waterfall. We can't refer to Tim being the older sibling. (spoilers for the benefit of first time novel readers.)

I think there's a bit of approval through Universal if we reference a neat idea in the novel that wasn't expressly rebuked by the movie. But we're trying to ignore the novel altogether except where we run into a technical plot point where we're like, "that science fact was never explained in the movie, but I know they touched on it in the books."

[BLACK_HAWK94]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

We just can't go breaking movie canon by superseding it with novel canon because it has to fit the continuity of Universal's properties (except where artistic license is concerned... like Harding's mustache and pot belly.)

Like, we can't refer to Hammond being dead at the end of the original JP. We can't refer to Grant escaping the T-Rex under the waterfall. We can't refer to Tim being the older sibling. (spoilers for the benefit of first time novel readers.)

I think there's a bit of approval through Universal if we reference a neat idea in the novel that wasn't expressly rebuked by the movie. But we're trying to ignore the novel altogether except where we run into a technical plot point where we're like, "that science fact was never explained in the movie, but I know they touched on it in the books."

Okay in an interview though you mentioned (or a telltale worker) said that all the movie dinos will be their, along with a few the movie sorta overlooked (excluding troodon.)

[Sinaz20]

Originally Posted by BLACK_HAWK94

Okay in an interview though you mentioned (or a telltale worker) said that all the movie dinos will be their, along with a few the movie sorta overlooked (excluding troodon.)

...yes...?

[BLACK_HAWK94]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

...yes...?

so isnt that more novel based?

[Sinaz20]

Originally Posted by BLACK_HAWK94

so isnt that more novel based?

How?

Michael Crichton didn't invent dinosaurs.

[BLACK_HAWK94]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

How?

Michael Crichton didn't invent dinosaurs.

Well no, what I mean is... nah nevermind, but I got a question for you.

[Sinaz20]

Originally Posted by BLACK_HAWK94

Well no, what I mean is... nah nevermind, but I got a question for you.

Lol-- What's the question??

[BLACK_HAWK94]

I preordered the Game and the money is off my card, but it says i havnt baught it.

[Shadowknight1]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

How?

Michael Crichton didn't invent dinosaurs.

I think what he's referring to is that the Jurassic Park novel had an exact list of what all dinosaurs were in Jurassic Park, as well as the numbers. Personally, I don't see the problem using that list since the movie specifically states that there are fifteen species on the island.

[Sinaz20]

Originally Posted by BLACK_HAWK94

I preordered the Game and the money is off my card, but it says i havnt baught it.

Contact customer support.