This was a massive piece of shit.
It was going to make money regardless, but can someone please explain how this was so well received?
>>67408585
>>67408655
Well, I didn't intend on falling again, but...
>>67408585
>but can someone please explain how this was so well received
Dinosaurs going on a rampage.
Just show anything featuring destruction and dinosaurs to the american audience and they'll go crazy
>>67408843
>american audience
You're not wrong, but this movie made even more overseas
>>67408585
I agree it is kinda fucking boring
>>67408585
I don't understand why people liked it either. It looked pretty, I guess, but it shat all over the original movie and wasn't much better than the sequels.
>>67408585
72% isnt that well received, but basically this was a movie people really WANTED to like. Especially people who grew up with the original, and now had 4 and 5-year old kids that they wanted to show the movie too. Nostalgia blinds things, and so you have people going easy on the movie because they don't want yo admit it's bad.
Similar thing happened with phantom menace in '99. The same year my fictional girlfriend was born.
I guess 72% is pretty high, in comparison to pic related anyway.
>Later that month, Trevorrow did not deny that the film could involve "dinosaur soldiers",[57] and said the series is "not always gonna be about a Jurassic Park," saying he felt that future films could explore the idea of dinosaurs and humans co-existing together.[52] That same month, Trevorrow hinted that the next film may not involve the Jurassic World theme park
Why bother making more movies, then?
>>67408585
>cinematography was decent
>cgi was really decent
>3d was surprisingly not annoying
>chris pratt did the role perfectly
>dinosaurs fighting constantly
>for a pg-13 jurassic film, still very violent
>sweaty BDH
>captured the feel of grandeur
>script kept referencing all the in-advertising
It wasn't "good"
But it was really well produced and perfect as far as summer blockbusters go
The only major issue was that the plot was full of holes and kinda stupid. But normies don't pay attention to plot anyway
The important thing was that you could take a 2 minute break to take a selfie or send a tweet at any point in the film without being overly confused
>>67408585
Nostalgia. Dinosaurs.
And it was retarded, but kind of fun. At least the first half.
>>67408881
Good marketing? The Jurassic Park films are very known and since it was 14 years since the last movie there was a lot of excitement for the new one. The same thing applied to the new Star Wars film too.
>>67408585
This movie was basically fan service
>new park
>shows the old park
>old cars
>rexy vs i.rex
>raptorbro and trexbro
>>67408585
Nostalgia pandering. I know I got a little teary whenthey entered the old park
It wasn't hailed as being on par with the original, but yeah it wasn't that good.
Jurassic Park 3 was better. Not even memeing.
I have no idea, the movie was fucking shit.
Was fun dumb action movie with a female lead that I've spilled many a seed over
Not great, not as good as the first two, better than 3 tho
>>67409188
What's the probability that that dinosaur was able to track them around the island constantly?
>>67409188
They're both kind of shit, its a shit salad.
>>67409264
You have a higher probability of finding yourself in a shitty third movie of a series
