There’s been a lot of talk lately about how Jurassic Park “needs” a prequel—something about John Hammond’s early years, more lore, more backstory, more nostalgia sprinkles. People want to see how the park was built, how Hammond got his amber cane, how Biosyn operated before the films, how the original characters crossed paths, etc.

But honestly, there are some big problems with this idea, and it goes way deeper than the usual “prequels are pointless because we know who survives.”

1. The John Hammond Prequel Problem

The biggest issue is simple: there’s no actual story here—just backstory.

Hammond already had his arc in the first film. He goes from a wide‑eyed dreamer blinded by ambition to someone forced to confront the consequences of his own creation. A prequel can’t give him a new arc without contradicting the original, and it can’t repeat the same arc without being redundant.

So, what’s left?

• “How he got the cane”
• “Seeing the flea circus in live action”
• “Watching him slowly build the park we already know fails”

That’s not a story. That’s a lore dump.

Even the Hammond–Lockwood fallout or early Biosyn conflict doesn’t add much. We already know the outcome: they split, mistakes were made, Biosyn becomes the shady rival. There’s no tension, no mystery, no emotional stakes—just filling in blanks that didn’t need filling.

And you can’t even have big dinosaur incidents without making Hammond look like an even bigger idiot for opening the park later.

Lore enthusiasts might enjoy it, but the general audience doesn’t care about another round of nostalgia bait. And showing the construction of Jurassic Park is pointless when the entire franchise already tells us the same thing: the park was doomed from the start.