Jurassic World (2015)

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Episode VII has 0% chance of beating Avatar, $2.8B is an enormous sum.

Oh, I disagree completely.

Look at how much the prequel trilogy made. And those movies fell considerably short of the greatness of the first three movies.

When that new movie comes out, with the original cast in tow, look out. It's going to be box office gold. If it's a really good movie, there's no limit to how much it can bring in. You forget that there is a legion of Star Wars fans out there. Avatar didn't have that going in. And those people that grew up watching Star Wars as kids are adults now. Adults with families, and money.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Dave the Minion

Phantom Menace being a bad film is debatable. And still further from the point that's trying to be hammered down in multiple off-topic threads. Star Wars will make boatloads of money. Will it make as much, as fast, as Jurassic World? Only time will tell. But aside from it being a sock puppet show made by ISIS, or some wrath of God smiting the entire United States now that gay marriage is fully legal, there's very little that will "severely hurt" it's box office receipts. Certainly not being released on the same day as Avatar which has made more money than every movie, ever.

I've seen JW twice. If my Star Wars theater going trends continue I'll see TFA at least 4 times. I've seen TPM theatrically 10 times.

Unadjusted, you mean.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

I don't think The Phantom Menace is a bad film. People today are far too quick to over-exaggerate with their statements. When an anticipated movie comes out, and it doesn't meet expectations, there are posts all over the net like "this movie sucks", and "this is the worst movie ever made."

Really? Welcome to the age of hyperbole!

Gigli was a bad film. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was a bad film. Batman & Robin was a bad film.

The Phantom Menace was not a bad film. It was not a great film, or even a very good film. It was a flawed film. And some of the elements within the film were absolutely nauseating. Jar Jar Binks made me want to scratch my eyes out, and rip off my ears. The ridiculous droid army ("Roger, Roger") could have spontaneously exploded three minutes in, and nobody would have cared. And please, don't get me started on Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker. But there were a lot of great elements, too. Ewan McGregor absolutely channeled Sir Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi. I thought Liam Neeson did a fine job, and Darth Maul was a bad ____. The lightsaber duels were worth the price of admission alone. It holds a 6.6 on imdb right now, and I think that's about right. I consider a 7 score or higher the mark of a good film. Great films I'd say hover around 8 or higher, with the true all-time classics (Casablanca, The Godfather, Schindler's List, Lawrence of Arabia, The Wizard of Oz, Psycho, Apocalypse Now, etc) closing on 8.5 or higher. Certainly the imdb list/scores are not the be all, end all. But the scores are usually pretty close, imo.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I don't think The Phantom Menace is a bad film. People today are far too quick to over-exaggerate with their statements. When an anticipated movie comes out, and it doesn't meet expectations, there are posts all over the net like "this movie sucks", and "this is the worst movie ever made."

Really? Welcome to the age of hyperbole!

Gigli was a bad film. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was a bad film. Batman & Robin was a bad film.

The Phantom Menace was not a bad film. It was not a great film, or even a very good film. It was a flawed film. And some of the elements within the film were absolutely nauseating. Jar Jar Binks made me want to scratch my eyes out, and rip off my ears. The ridiculous droid army ("Roger, Roger") could have spontaneously exploded three minutes in, and nobody would have cared. And please, don't get me started on Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker. But there were a lot of great elements, too. Ewan McGregor absolutely channeled Sir Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi. I thought Liam Neeson did a fine job, and Darth Maul was a bad ____. The lightsaber duels were worth the price of admission alone. It holds a 6.6 on imdb right now, and I think that's about right. I consider a 7 score or higher the mark of a good film. Great films I'd say hover around 8 or higher, with the true all-time classics (Casablanca, The Godfather, Schindler's List, Lawrence of Arabia, The Wizard of Oz, Psycho, Apocalypse Now, etc) closing on 8.5 or higher. Certainly the imdb list/scores are not the be all, end all. But the scores are usually pretty close, imo.

The negativity wasn't about Internet dog piling. My friend and I forged our opinions quite individually.

I will grant you that Ewan and Liam were good. But the problem was that the material was truly awful. I don't think that Lucas is a good director, not have I ever thought that he was. But he CERTAINLY can't write his way out of a paper bag. Some of the dialogue in that movie wouldn't earn a C+ in a high school writing course. And I'm not exaggerating. The whole film is almost amateurish, except for the technical aspects, which are what make the film seem acceptable. It LOOKS cool, it SOUNDS cool, it has some excellent EFFECTS. But strip all that away? What are you left with? Soulless characters, awful dialogue, one-quarter of a plot, and nothing else.

I've ranted enough here about what I think about IMDB ratings, so I won't bother you with a repeat of that, except to say that I think they mean bunk. And there's ample evidence to show that.

[Dave the Minion]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Unadjusted, you mean.

What's that supposed to mean?

How many options did people have to spend their entertainment money on 80 years ago? All that cable TV, internet, sports franchises, numerous blockbuster movies, video games etc. etc. The adjusted for inflation argument means nothing. NES games cost $100 25 years ago yet GTAV made more actual dollars than Super Mario Bros. 3.

How much money, adjusted for inflation, did EVERY movie released 80 years ago stack up to EVERY movie released the same year as Avatar?

Avatar was released on December 18th. It's being argued, in a thread that has nothing to do with Star Wars or Avatar, that being released on the exact same day will be the reason Star Wars box office gross will be severely hurt. Despite ample overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Does no one moderate these forums?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Dave the Minion

What's that supposed to mean?

How many options did people have to spend their entertainment money on 80 years ago? All that cable TV, internet, sports franchises, numerous blockbuster movies, video games etc. etc. The adjusted for inflation argument means nothing. NES games cost $100 25 years ago yet GTAV made more actual dollars than Super Mario Bros. 3.

How much money, adjusted for inflation, did EVERY movie released 80 years ago stack up to EVERY movie released the same year as Avatar?

Avatar was released on December 18th. It's being argued, in a thread that has nothing to do with Star Wars or Avatar, that being released on the exact same day will be the reason Star Wars box office gross will be severely hurt. Despite ample overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Does no one moderate these forums?

What it MEANS is that, in adjusted dollars (which you could figure out if you went to any one of a million sites that cover this sort of thing) Gone With The Wind has made approximately $1.1 TRILLION dollars. In other words, Avatar would need to multiply its total gross by approximately 350x to equal GwtW.

The statement was made that Avatar has made more than any other movie ever. That is patently untrue. It has made more in pure 20xx dollars than movie ever. Why do you think that sites give unadjusted and adjusted totals?

[StingingVelvet]

Indeed.

I love it when featurettes and stuff now brag about "and we made 20 million on a Friday, which was unheard of before!" If you adjust for inflation all of these modern record-holders fall way down the list. Way, way down in most cases. It's made up success to try and make the films look more popular than they are.

Numbers of tickets sold would be the true popularity contest, but it's hard to find information.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Oh, I disagree completely.

Look at how much the prequel trilogy made. And those movies fell considerably short of the greatness of the first three movies.

When that new movie comes out, with the original cast in tow, look out. It's going to be box office gold. If it's a really good movie, there's no limit to how much it can bring in. You forget that there is a legion of Star Wars fans out there. Avatar didn't have that going in. And those people that grew up watching Star Wars as kids are adults now. Adults with families, and money.

I'm not denying the popularity of Star Wars or the OT, and if anything I agree that the Christmas release will help the film (IIRC Avatar also released on December 18, so there's that). But $2.8B is a ridiculous amount of money. In North America alone there are plenty of things holding Episode VII back: holiday shopping leaving less money for movies, kids will be back in school within 2-3 weeks of the movie opening, plus weather will keep people from theaters, etc. Can't speak for the rest of the world but there are always other factors. Avatar had a great/lucky combination of technology, 3D, Cameron, little competition, thin story that made it easily translatable across languages/cultures, and so on. I wish Episode VII all the best (I'm skipping it), but it won't dethrone Avatar.

[bookcase]

Are we still talking about Jurassic World?

[imsounoriginal]

Sorry for going off-topic

As for the Jurassic World - hoping that the Target exclusive content is on-disc and substantial. Since it doesn't look like the US is getting a Steelbook I'll be buying Target's by default.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I'm not denying the popularity of Star Wars or the OT, and if anything I agree that the Christmas release will help the film (IIRC Avatar also released on December 18, so there's that). But $2.8B is a ridiculous amount of money. In North America alone there are plenty of things holding Episode VII back: holiday shopping leaving less money for movies, kids will be back in school within 2-3 weeks of the movie opening, plus weather will keep people from theaters, etc. Can't speak for the rest of the world but there are always other factors. Avatar had a great/lucky combination of technology, 3D, Cameron, little competition, thin story that made it easily translatable across languages/cultures, and so on. I wish Episode VII all the best (I'm skipping it), but it won't dethrone Avatar.

I'm no Star Wars fan. I don't hate the saga, nor love the saga. I don't own them on home video (look at my collection). I am 44, and a father.
What I've noticed, is that people 55 years old love Star Wars, and kids 5 years old love Star Wars.
Isn't that, along with the original cast returning and JJ at the helm, the perfect set of ingredients needed to potentially beat Avatar?
Meaning, out of all the movies slated to come out in the next three years, doesn't Star Wars 7 have the best chance?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

I'm no Star Wars fan. I don't hate the saga, nor love the saga. I don't own them on home video (look at my collection). I am 44, and a father.
What I've noticed, is that people 55 years old love Star Wars, and kids 5 years old love Star Wars.
Isn't that, along with the original cast returning and JJ at the helm, the perfect set of ingredients needed to potentially beat Avatar?
Meaning, out of all the movies slated to come out in the next three years, doesn't Star Wars 7 have the best chance?

Look at Jurassic World, a sequel to a film that's 22 years old and was formerly the most financially successful film ever, and was marketed primarily on nostalgia. That's the closest recent movie to Episode VII, and yeah it's doing gangbusters at the box office, but it may not reach $2B, let alone $2.8B. With the OT cast back (although no one knows in what capacity, from what I've seen it just looks like "Han and the tykes") and the holiday release date, Episode VII has a leg up on Jurassic World, but not enough to push it to $2.8B. People are gonna put all these lofty expectations on Episode VII and even when it does do well, it'll be labeled "disappointing" just because it didn't beat Avatar.

[MifuneFan]

Please take it to a SW's thread guys...

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Please take it to a SW's thread guys...

Well, I have no need to be in there... I'm not a SW fan... and the conversation in here, as I see it, is about Jurassic World's numbers, and how they may stack up against former big ticket films (Avatar), and future big ticket films (Star Wars 7)

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Well, I have no need to be in there... I'm not a SW fan... and the conversation in here, as I see it, is about Jurassic World's numbers, and how they may stack up against former big ticket films (Avatar), and future big ticket films (Star Wars 7)

It's all about Star Wars..

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It's all about Star Wars..

I got a good way to get it back to Jurassic World.
Did anyone think there would be more to the "young love" aspect for the older boy (Zach)? Ya know, the way they showed him nonchalantly saying goodbye to his stage 5 clinger girlfriend, and later kinda flirting with others at the park?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

I got a good way to get it back to Jurassic World.
Did anyone think there would be more to the "young love" aspect for the older boy (Zach)? Ya know, the way they showed him nonchalantly saying goodbye to his stage 5 clinger girlfriend, and later kinda flirting with others at the park?

Yes, but I'm glad that there wasn't. Teen romance in movies is a pet peeve of mine, especially when it's not part of the main story. It's like the studios need to shoehorn useless angsty romance into these movies so guys can convince their girlfriends/wives to tag along on movie night.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yes, but I'm glad that there wasn't. Teen romance in movies is a pet peeve of mine, especially when it's not part of the main story. It's like the studios need to shoehorn useless angsty romance into these movies so guys can convince their girlfriends/wives to tag along on movie night.

Me too. I agree.
I could have sworn they were foreshadowing at some sort of "high school love" angle. Thank God they didn't.

[Feiereisel]

Saw this yesterday. Astonishingly bad--the parts that aren't a pale imitation of the original are supremely uninspired.

RE: the older brother--contemptible characterization that is indicative of the film's overall shoddiness. Because that sub-plot is dropped, the film implicitly condones that kind of disgusting, goonish behavior.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

I would argue that the December release will severely hurt it. Kids aren't off from school for the summer like they would be for the typical May release. It certainly won't break any box office records being the week before Christmas when everyone is shopping around like mad men to get their gifts bought. Perhaps the week after Christmas is when everyone will catch up. December 18th is just an awful release date.

December frame didn't hurt Titanic or Avatar...it won't hurt The Force Awakens.

I think December 18th might set a record for people calling in sick to work.