Jurassic World - Part 10

[def28]

The movie is doing really well, but it's hard for me to be impressed. It seems every year something breaks some record.

1. higher priced tickets

2. wider releases

3. people more willing to see 3D and IMAX


At the time, the first Jurassic was the #1 grossing movie.

Adjusted it probably still destroys the majorioty of modern blockbuster flicks.

 

[Wildcard]

Said before & I'll say it again...adjusted numbers is just wishful thinking, they don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Wildcard]

The movie is doing really well, but it's hard for me to be impressed. It seems every year something breaks some record.

1. higher priced tickets

2. wider releases

3. people more willing to see 3D and IMAX


At the time, the first Jurassic was the #1 grossing movie.


And can we get some Bryce Dallas Howard gifs?

I'd be extremely happy if this were to happen, they are definitely needed. t:

 

[MrMaooz]

This movie gave me a crush on her. Hottest I've ever seen her.

 

[def28]

Said before & I'll say it again...adjusted numbers is just wishful thinking, they don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

Not aware of your posts on the subject so not following your logic here.

Are you saying the higher amount of money being earned wins regardless if the average ticket was 4 bucks in 1993 compared to 8 or 9 bucks now in 2015 ? Or are you just talking the grand scheme of fandom and studio bragging rights?

 

[:eek:]

Said before & I'll say it again...adjusted numbers is just wishful thinking, they don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

It do mean something if you're going to compare movies released several years apart, and want to to get an idea how they stand against each other in terms of their power of getting people into theaters.

 

[def28]

Yeah, I just don't don't see how that can't be taken into account when comparing older films.

 

[Wildcard]

For years I've viewed it this way...I get that adjusted dollars is supposed to give a rough view of what the movie would've made in "today's money" but I just haven't ever seen it as necessary/important. My apologies if it seems like I'm insulting anyone, that's not my intention, just wanted to give my viewpoint on it while it was being discussed.

Also, the "as I said before" part of my statement wasn't directed at you, per se, just something I added in. I didn't mean it in a derogatory "you must have missed my point before" way.

No worries, my good people.

 

[spiderman2]

Said before & I'll say it again...adjusted numbers is just wishful thinking, they don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

I agree I think the only way to really compare movies is how did they do vs other movies that came out that same year. There are just to many factors now days. Back in the older days movies where in theaters longer, ticket prices where lower, didn't have things like video games, less movies to compet agest, smaller international market ect.

The movie is doing really well, but it's hard for me to be impressed. It seems every year something breaks some record.

1. higher priced tickets

2. wider releases

3. people more willing to see 3D and IMAX


At the time, the first Jurassic was the #1 grossing movie.


And can we get some Bryce Dallas Howard gifs?

Yeah but a billion in just 10 days is still something and a lot of movies that have made a billion have either just been over it or where only over it because of the 3d. This movie with how much it has made in just 10 days would get passed a billion even with out 3d witch is still a big number.

 

[jed]

Just wondering, why are all the raptors, the T-Rex and the Indominus Rex females ??

 

[Dave McFly]

um they were bred that way

 

[def28]

For years I've viewed it this way...I get that adjusted dollars is supposed to give a rough view of what the movie would've made in "today's money" but I just haven't ever seen it as necessary/important. My apologies if it seems like I'm insulting anyone, that's not my intention, just wanted to give my viewpoint on it while it was being discussed.

Also, the "as I said before" part of my statement wasn't directed at you, per se, just something I added in. I didn't mean it in a derogatory "you must have missed my point before" way.

No worries, my good people.

Didn't take it as an insult at all Hulk. Was just trying to understand your pov and never seen you post on the subject. All good.

I agree I think the only way to really compare movies is how did they do vs other movies that came out that same year. There are just to many factors now days. Back in the older days movies where in theaters longer, ticket prices where lower, didn't have things like video games, less movies to compet agest, smaller international market ect.

You have to be able to compare somehow though. Of course times change, online piracy and very fast home disc/digital distribution likely plays more of an effect in the differences imo. But I think there is def a way to gauge a general sense here using adjusted numbers, and a film like this shows that audiences are more then willing to shell out the dough and come in droves like the old day blockbusters regardless. Cinema ain't dead or anything and the same concept applies for bringing people in.

The main thing here is that a ****load of people showed up. That's a films job. Audiences will always have other things to do. Doesn't matter if kids or adults were playing Zelda on Nintendo or COD on PS4, the film brought heads to the theatre cause of interest. With a movie like Jurassic World, people are going to see it mainly because of the insanely huge success brought on by the first film. Those JP1 domestic numbers kicked ass. It would be roughly 700m today. Can't deny significant numbers like that. It's impact on pop culture and the box office was astounding.

 

[spiderman2]

Didn't take it as an insult at all Hulk. Was just trying to understand your pov and never seen you post on the subject. All good.



You have to be able to compare somehow though. Of course times change, online piracy and very fast home disc/digital distribution likely plays more of an effect in the differences imo. But I think there is def a way to gauge a general sense here using adjusted numbers, and a film like this shows that audiences are more then willing to shell out the dough and come in droves like the old day blockbusters regardless. Cinema ain't dead or anything and the same concept applies for bringing people in.

The main thing here is that a ****load of people showed up. That's a films job. Audiences will always have other things to do. Doesn't matter if kids or adults were playing Zelda on Nintendo or COD on PS4, the film brought heads to the theatre cause of interest. With a movie like Jurassic World, people are going to see it mainly because of the insanely huge success brought on by the first film. Those JP1 domestic numbers kicked ass. It would be roughly 700m today. Can't deny significant numbers like that. It's impact on pop culture and the box office was astounding.

I never said that cinema is died and yes JW is doing great and yes JP1 did great. I just think there are to many factors to say that say a movie from 1993 would have made more then some movie form say 2015 if it had the same ticket prices because like I said the international market has gotten bigger, there are more things to do for entertainment, economy all make a difference when it comes to how much a movie may or not make. It used to be like a year from the time a movie would come out to theaters to then home video. Now it is like 5 months. Because of all of those things there is no way to know if JP1 would have sold more or less tickets if it came out today or how many more or how many less. There is no way to no how much of an infect those things would have made or not made. Also I think if you go back a while there where less movies a year coming out so you had less to choice from so less compaction. The bottom line is the movie has made over a billion but a billion is not what it used to be because of things like international market, 3d, Imax ect. Now like 1.3 billion is the new billion but even so this movie at worst is going to get to like 1.5 billion and that is real big!

 

[spiderman2]

So like what are the changes that this movie makes it to like 2 billion world wide? 10?, 20? ect. What about 700 USA?

 

[def28]

I never said that cinema is died and yes JW is doing great and yes JP1 did great. I just think there are to many factors to say that say a movie from 1993 would have made more then some movie form say 2015 if it had the same ticket prices because like I said the international market has gotten bigger, there are more things to do for entertainment, economy all make a difference when it comes to how much a movie may or not make. It used to be like a year from the time a movie would come out to theaters to then home video. Now it is like 5 months. Because of all of those things there is no way to know if JP1 would have sold more or less tickets if it came out today or how many more or how many less. There is no way to no how much of an infect those things would have made or not made. Also I think if you go back a while there where less movies a year coming out so you had less to choice from so less compaction. The bottom line is the movie has made over a billion but a billion is not what it used to be because of things like international market, 3d, Imax ect. Now like 1.3 billion is the new billion but even so this movie at worst is going to get to like 1.5 billion and that is real big!

That's all what if stuff though. Obviously JP 1 would be a completly different movie if it came out today. We are not comparing that, it's a simple comparison of which made more regardless when released and how to make sure the dollar is equal based on the info we have.

It's the best way to get a solid generalization of tix sold and I'm not even really talking overseas. Domestic wise there's an obvious comparison in popularity just by looking at those numbers. And they were huge. Exact stats of lifestyle and economy changes going into every little detail on how that effects one movie? Yeah, we are not getting that. What we do have is numbers and how much those numbers would be today. Which gives us a pretty solid idea of how to compare the two success wise.

If one older film makes quite a bit more adjusted, is it really that odd to think said film was more successful? I mean how else would you get a gauge of the average ticket price? Maybe I'm crazy haha.

 

[smallville fan]

Got a question for all of you. If Indominus Rex was placed into the time of the Dinosaurs 66 million years ago, how'd you think it would fair? I know that's a bit if a stretch to think about since we really don't know what life was like 66 million years ago. I guess a better question is, what if it lived on a straight up pure Dinosaur island/country like Site B right now from birth?

 

[Wildcard]

I think the Indominus Rex, if it were real or in the films had the chance to live freely ala the Spinosaurus, it'd be top dog. With all of her attributes, there's no way she wouldn't be one of, if not the most dangerous predator to ever walk this planet. She was already incredibly intelligent but imagine how much smarter she'd be with more years of experience under her belt & time to refine and truly hone her natural abilities.

 

[SuperFerret]

She'd also be more well adjusted, as she was obviously a social creature that was kept in isolation. Killing a sibling isn't that unusual for certain species, but the lack of a parental figure likely added to the psychosis she suffered. That was my favorite thing about the iRex, even though she was a genetically-modified monster, she was still an animal and acted similar to the way chimps have when raised in the same manner.

 

[BigA]

I have always been disappointed that Triceratops (my favorite) was never featured. I remember when I was young the kids would always have T-Rex vs. Triceratops.

From what I read, there's no evidence that they did do battle, but since this is a movie anyhow that doesn't matter. Even though Triceratops is a herbivore and not inherently aggressive it's plausible that he/she could defeat the T-Rex using the large horn and bull-rushing.

 

[PalmerTheThing]

I wonder if this has a chance of hitting 2 bil...

Doubtful but definitely in the realms of reality.

 

[Micromind]

I have always been disappointed that Triceratops (my favorite) was never featured. I remember when I was young the kids would always have T-Rex vs. Triceratops.

From what I read, there's no evidence that they did do battle, but since this is a movie anyhow that doesn't matter. Even though Triceratops is a herbivore and not inherently aggressive it's plausible that he/she could defeat the T-Rex using the large horn and bull-rushing.

Triceratops (and other big herbivores like ankylosaurus) usually formed a group chain and attacked the predator dino with horns, spiked tails from three directions thus injuring and driving the attacker away (occasionally killing them.)


They also had an alpha male to lead the group and kept baby dinos inside a circle made by adult female dinos during the fight. It would be interesting to see all this in some movie in future.

 

[smallville fan]

I have always been disappointed that Triceratops (my favorite) was never featured. I remember when I was young the kids would always have T-Rex vs. Triceratops.

Well it was seen in JW. There's also the Telltale game as well which had a T-Rex vs. Triceratops fight. I was just watching a play through of it the other day and it had some great JP moments and story telling as well as action. I also like that it could be treated as canon if you wanted it to be.

If they mixed up some of the stuff from JP3 with the stuff in the game, the movie would've been better.

 

[Wildcard]

She'd also be more well adjusted, as she was obviously a social creature that was kept in isolation. Killing a sibling isn't that unusual for certain species, but the lack of a parental figure likely added to the psychosis she suffered. That was my favorite thing about the iRex, even though she was a genetically-modified monster, she was still an animal and acted similar to the way chimps have when raised in the same manner.

Oh yeah, any animal raised in complete solidarity is going to be more hostile & more vicious so it was stupid on their part to go about it that way. They should've known enough to know better to come up with a sufficient strategy.

 

[Lily Adler]

I don't know what would happen if this beats Avatar...

 

[Micromind]

I don't know what would happen if this beats Avatar...

Dinos take King of the World title.