MovieMan89

Either way, it's depressing af to see coming right off of the Goldblum Ragnarok high.

If the dinos were mechanical this would be kind of hard to distinguish from Age of Extinction...

I'm still pissed I didn't follow my gut with JW and predict 400+. I wanted to, but the fact that so few would even go over 250 kept making me think I was getting carried away. Ha! On the bright side, JW's performance caused me to stick to my guns on my $1b TFA DOM prediction. Maybe didn't quite happen, but still was the only one around here who got anywhere close to predicting its gross before the presales.

Goldblum in this trailer has all the charisma of an elderly Sam Worthington.

They really did try to throw the kitchen sink at us with the volcano set piece and it just isn't nearly as effective to build hype. The JW teaser showed surprisingly little but teased the Indominus to glorious effect.

The aquatic dino leaping out of the water money shot from the JW teaser was more effective marketing all on its own than the entirety of this trailer.

This is a massive franchise for kids though, horror elements and all, so I can't see how I2 doesn't have an effect on it.

New predicts: 140 OW/375 DOM/1.175B WW

The JW marketing looked fresh and exciting. This definitely doesn't, and putting all their eggs in one scene to sell the movie like they did in this trailer isn't my idea of great marketing.

Wow, that was far more underwhelming than I ever expected and just overall one of the more bizarre trailers I've ever seen for a big blockbuster. The plot and concept seem absolutely awful. Something about that trailer itself was just so...off. Don't know if it was the editing, the music, or maybe that it focused so much on splicing bits of the eruption scene together to comprise most of a trailer? All of the above I guess? Idk, it all just felt odd. The dinos didn't even seem all that exciting, in fact if not for the Carnotaurus the dinos themselves would have left almost zero impression on me in the trailer. Lowering all my predictions now.

I thought the idea was for all the Avatar sequels to be annual releases. Of course it's Cameron so who knows.

Do we have a 2019 predictions thread yet? Was realizing how it's entirely possible Disney gets the whole top 5 that year. Wonder Woman 2 is the only big threat to that happening.

Based on this whole marketing a trailer thing, I'm thinking Uni is very thirsty to snatch the DOM/WW crown next year from Disney since JW made 600+ DOM and 1.5b+ WW in 2015 and still got beaten by the mouse. And every other studio has already waved the white flag and completely surrendered to the big D in 2019. So they might go all out here. Could be in for one hell of an aggressive marketing campaign. Maybe they can manage to sneak the WW crown for this, but don't see DOM happening.

In some ways it does feel very odd to have zero time have passed in the movies after all these years. Given they went that route, I'd have to guess Bird had the basic plot outline in his head ever since the original and it just took this long to come to fruition.

In terms of their potential value to Disney then yes. But not by current value.

Fairly certain they're only hyping it like this because of what happened with the IW trailer. Their only chance to compete with the buzz that got is to have a marketing campaign for the freakin teaser lmao. Too bad still won't touch the hype A bomb the IW trailer was.

It is kinda crazy to think that Disney really just wants them for two franchises. I mean take out Avatar and X-Men and their interest would probably be at 0%.

Yeah, the top 5 live action original openings are all from 7+ years ago: 1. Avatar - $77m 2. The Day After Tomorrow - $68.7m 3. Bruce Almighty - $67.9m 4. 2012 - $65.2 5. Inception - $62.7

Was trying to find the next biggest live action original opening after Avatar, and looks like it's still The Day After Tomorrow shockingly enough.

Right, because it's adapted from something. Let's pretend Moonlight opened to like $110m or something, BOM wouldn't have reported as the biggest original film opening, because it's not original.

I think a brand like a studio or even a director is a different thing than a franchise. It's like calling an actor with star power a franchise, so therefore no Leo film could be seen as "original." Don't agree with that, I'd still consider an original film he did as original. Avatar couldn't really have been called an original by those standards either since Cameron certainly had huge name power when it came out. I think an original film is simply just that, one that's not part of a franchise or adapted from anything.

Idk, just thought he was asking what's the best definition for an original film, not how it behaved at the box office. I mean you could say an original film like San Andreas "behaved" like a franchise one at the BO or a franchise film like Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol behaved like an original.

But how does how it behaves negate the fact that it's not really "original?" It's adapted from something.

I've honestly been expecting Disney to go after Fox for a couple years now, ever since they decided to sink so much money into their Avatar land at Animal Kingdom.

I'd say 2. No such thing as a "franchise" film yet if it's neither a sequel or adaptation.