They actually make a joke about it in the trailers by saying that the "new" dinosaurs at the fictional park were created because the fictional public was bored with the old ones. That's the hint that the movie is basically a remake of the original, but tailored to the expectations of a contemporary movie audience that would consider the T-Rex to be old hat.
It's definitely a sequel not a remake/reboot. But from the trailer you can see if lifts quite generously from the original, but I think the artsy term for that is homage!
One of the tech guys in the film gets reprimanded for wearing a T-shirt with the original Jurassic park logo that he bought off of ebay, due to all the dying that happened. The film is pretty decent for a film that's always going to be about dinosaurs eating things.
Technically they can say it's a sequel, but logically it's a remake. The general storyline is identical to the 1993 original, but it's being released 14 years after Jurassic Park III.
1993 version: humans tamper with nature by cloning dinosaurs from DNA and the dinosaurs go on a rampage at a tourist park that hasn't opened yet. Tyrannosaurus Rex is the main attraction. 2015 version: humans tamper with nature by creating new dinosaurs from DNA and the dinosaurs go on a rampage at a tourist park that has already opened. Indominus Rex is the main attraction. It's a remake.
Being technically correct is the best kind of correct! A remake/reboot would start the universe over. This acknowledges the previous films making it a sequel. Your parameters would make a ton of sequels into remakes.
Acknowledging the prior events and taking place in the same timeline doesn't mean that it wasn't conceived of as a remake. Why drop the Jurassic Park naming convention if it's really a sequel? Why release a sequel 14 years after Jurassic Park III? Why didn't the writers try to come up with an original fourth scenario for people being terrorized by the dinosaurs instead of returning the series to the same tourist attraction setting of the original? It's a remake.
I'm going to write a movie called Avengers of the Lost Ark that contains minor acknowledgements that the events of Raiders of the Lost Ark already took place a year earlier, but has the same storyline as Raiders of the Lost Ark. But it's not a remake. It's a sequel.
It's called Jurassic World in the film to separate itself from the stigma attached to the original park. Everything that happened in the original, happened. In universe, Jurassic World has been running since 2005. I don't really know what you're expecting from a film about a park filled with dinosaurs. It's not as if the dinosaurs are actually transformers and they're plotting to overthrow the world one theme park at a time.
It turns out all the dinosaurs are actually dead and the guests that visit the park are all dead. Anyone living visiting the park sees nothing. Not that there would be anyone alive because everyone was wiped out by the bees.
Right…same thing in Avengers of the Lost Ark. All of the events of Raiders of the Lost Ark have taken place in 1936. But now it's 1937! Game changer. The Nazis figure that they just flubbed a few lines of that Jewish ritual when opening the Ark, and it's safe to repeat the whole story all over again.
Now that I've seen it maybe this is a new hybrid of reboot-sequel or requel. Jurassic World acknowledges the timeline, characters, and is literally built on top of Jurassic Park. But the style, pacing, and many characters are identical to the original. That isn't counting the entire chunks lifted shot-by-shot. But all that applies to other franchises like Hangover, Expendables, etc... Overall it's pretty much exactly as I pegged it in the first post. Entertaining but underwhelming. The first two-thirds were pretty good but last third went full retard... they made not so subtle jabs about audiences expecting full-retard which made me expect a clever twist. Nope. They offered up an extra serving on a 2 for 1 special. 6.5/10
Jurassic World: Very enjoyable but felt it was missing something and not as good as the first one of course.