Jurassic World Weekend Thread | Official Est. 204.6M | 208.8M - Actuals

[Harpospoke]

Start it and I'm in.

 

List the CBMs which will surpass TA.  Which ones will surpass TDK (adjusted for 3D)? 

 

BvS and CA3 should easily be the two biggest of all time.  Easily.  They won't even be close.

There are many reasons for TA and TDK making what they did.   Many of those reasons have nothing to do with them being CBMs.   All it will take is another perfect storm for a future CBM to do similar numbers.

 

I actually chatted with a few friends about this awhile back. I never understood the point of Crichton's book, Its not clear that climate change/global warming is caused by people, and even if it is, its not clear how bad it'll be, so we should do nothing? lolwut. He uses tons of anecdotal reasoning, and misrepresents how science works to suit his agenda. 

There must be a middle ground between "doing nothing" and "dramatically altering the human lifestyle".    The two sides are very extreme on that.

[baumer]

I don't know but it would be nice if they just reported the actual numbers since they know what it is already and are drawing this out..

 

How can they report actuals if they aren't in yet?

[BoxOfficeZ]

You have this much to offer Michael Crichton (or me) as to how "science works": 0.000.

 

Please give me your definition of "science".

 

Science? The process of peer review is a blind review of the facts cited in a paper, exactly the opposite of how Crichton portrays it. There is intense competition in science, with multiple groups analyzing the same data, exactly what Crichton calls for. Crichton’s book of fiction was not peer reviewed, nor did he face any competition from competing scientific interpretations of the literature about global warming/climate warming, which allowed his hilarious book to be published.

 

Here's an example of his anecdotal reasoning (and yes, I'm aware of the irony). In the book, there's a scene where Crichton makes a big deal about how the warmest year on record in the US was 1934. Whether of not this is true depends on how you calculate average temperature, but it doesn’t really matter- 1934 was really warm. But, 14 of the 15 hottest years since records started being kept in 1895 have occurred after 2000. The trend toward warmness is obvious. In a large enough body of data or a large enough collection of papers you can find a factoid to support almost anything, but particular anecdotes are completely irrelevant (sorta like listing a sellout report on twitter here on the forums). Funny thing is he only shows you like what, 20 graphs that supports his viewpoint? What about the other ones? lol. 

 

Seriously, read his science notes at the end. He berates his readers for their ignorance while peddling a novel whose science is cherry-picked at best is the highest irony. He is actually falling prey to the very same short-handed, layperson mistake that "well, the Earth isn't warming uniformly, therefore global warming/climate change is bullshit" is a horrible misreading of the literature and research as seriously proposing a reconstructed velociraptor from mosquito blood (but this is fine, because Jurassic Park was fictional).

 

For characters, the climate change denialists are clear-thinking, evidence-admiring people, and when the good guys are being followed by the bad guys, the bad guys are driving Priuses (LMAO). The characters are puppets who recite talking points. They often refer to climate change (nonchanging) graphs, which Crichton inserts in the text which slows the supposed thriller down. The "thoughts" the main character, Peter, would sometimes be so satirical, I questioned why Crichton even bothered trying to make this a thriller. I assume he was trying to take his opinion mainstream by disguising it as fiction. What a depressingly bad novel by his standards. 

 

Crichton has some great novels, but he's a nuts on some things. 

 

Apologies for the rant everyone, just had to make it clear. 

 

CBS Morning News just reported JW Making 204M This weekend and used it as an actual number and not as an estimate.. Also most news outlets are reporting that this morning as well..

 

 

They're still using the estimates. They even said 204.6 which is the exact number Universal gave out. Its quite common with the media. Disney used 200.3m estimate for nearly a whole day before changing it to 207.4. 

Edited June 15, 2015 by BoxOfficeZ

[JennaJ]

Come BKB, you know media never gives the mondays actuals ever. They don t know what actuals are.

They just give the sunday estimates for the OW and they don t have a clue these numbers are just estimates, not the final numbers.

 

I think some media will report the actuals numbers when they come in or the following morning. Not as many as those who report estimates, obviously, but I think a new OW record is big enough news to warrant a second round of headlines.

[BoxOfficeZ]

I think some media will report the actuals numbers when they come in or the following morning. Not as many as those who report estimates, obviously, but I think a new OW record is big enough news to warrant a second round of headlines.

 

I'd imagine there'll be a press release from Universal as well. "WE BROKE THE RECORD" 

[BoxOfficeZ]

There must be a middle ground between "doing nothing" and "dramatically altering the human lifestyle".    The two sides are very extreme on that.

 

Oh I agree, but this is a discussion for another day.

 

There are many reasons for TA and TDK making what they did.   Many of those reasons have nothing to do with them being CBMs.   All it will take is another perfect storm for a future CBM to do similar numbers.

 

Well some would say TDK benefited from Ledger's death, and TA1 benefited from being the first teamup. Will we see a perfect storm for another CBM agian? I think so. I dunno if BvS is that one though. 

Edited June 15, 2015 by BoxOfficeZ

[DavidBrennan]

There are many reasons for TA and TDK making what they did.   Many of those reasons have nothing to do with them being CBMs.   All it will take is another perfect storm for a future CBM to do similar numbers.

 

There must be a middle ground between "doing nothing" and "dramatically altering the human lifestyle".    The two sides are very extreme on that.

 

The truth has no "middle ground".  It might coincidentally be in the middle of two different theories, but that's just a coincidence.  Science is the business of creating testable hypotheses.  From the hypthoses of anthropogenic global warming to the subsequent hypotheses of how severe it is to the subsequent hypotheses of how it can be reversed.

 

Time is the best experiment for such a wild claim (that mankind's carbon emissions - less in total than many volcanic eruptions - cause Earth to get hotter), and time has been very kind to the skeptics and very critical to the hysterics.

 

But they're too locked into the lie both financially and egotistically, and so they cannot dare say, "I'm sorry.  I was a fool and was wrong."

[CJohn]

BKB is in full denial. Just read the last few pages. JW deserves this. The OW record is right around the corner and Monday seems to be legendary as well.

[BoxOfficeZ]

But that's the point I've been making, they won't make a 2nd headline about it.. The number they just reported is etched in stone to them.. To them, that is the actual number and many others will see it as that to..

 

They definitely will make a second headline if Universal announces it broke the open weekend record. 

[DavidBrennan]

Science? The process of peer review is a blind review of the facts cited in a paper, exactly the opposite of how Crichton portrays it. There is intense competition in science, with multiple groups analyzing the same data, exactly what Crichton calls for. Crichton’s book of fiction was not peer reviewed, nor did he face any competition from competing scientific interpretations of the literature about global warming/climate warming, which allowed his hilarious book to be published.

 

 

lolol.  stop embarrassing yourself.  you offered nothing but a bizarre buzzword salad as a definition of science and clearly have no clue what you're babbling about.

 

incidentally, for lurkers, the "peer review!" charade is the biggest tell of a layman poseur in the science community.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-peer-reviews-are-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html

[JennaJ]

But that's the point I've been making, they won't make a 2nd headline about it.. The number they just reported is etched in stone to them.. To them, that is the actual number and many others will see it as that to..

 

You seem very sure of that, but you're wrong. The trades, at the very least, will report on a new OW, and I think some traditional media outlets will follow.

 

It won't get as many headlines as the estimates, but that really doesn't matter much. It's already painted as a huge success story. 

[DavidBrennan]

The late, great Michael Crichton at 30m40s mark:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?195629-1/book-discussion-next

[DavidBrennan]

When the news this morning is reporting the number as an actual number instead of an estimate, I'm within every right to feel this way..

 

What was your prediction?  If you were off by 80 already, does it really make a difference to your self-esteem if the finals show you're off by 85, instead?

[JennaJ]

When the news this morning is reporting the number as an actual number instead of an estimate, I'm within every right to feel this way..

 

The GA has no clue how box office results are predicted. They won't go into details about estimates etc. But a new OW record is big enough news to break the tradition and report on it again.

It seems like you want to stay under the illusion that the record isn't gone, or that if it is, it doesn't matter because media won't report on it.

[BoxOfficeZ]

lolol.  stop embarrassing yourself.  you offered nothing but a bizarre buzzword salad as a definition of science and clearly have no clue what you're babbling about.

 

incidentally, for lurkers, the "peer review!" charade is the biggest tell of a layman poseur in the science community.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-peer-reviews-are-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html

 

Alright, one guy says its horrible, its gotta be! Best example of anecdotal reasoning.  

 

Also, good job ignoring all my other points lol, keep it up.

 

Anyways whatever, we're off topic. Still awaiting on the great almighty rth. 

Edited June 15, 2015 by BoxOfficeZ

[JennaJ]

Unless the media reports that JW has beaten TA OW, Then No... Until I hear that from them, it's open season...

 

You're becoming far too predictable, BKB.

[BoxOfficeZ]

Let BKB have his illusions for the time being. 

[BoxOfficeZ]

150M.. Don't know of anyone who predicted higher than that as no one expected this to happen...

 

Excel was saying it could be really huge on thursday, but I don't think anyone here took notice lol. 

[DavidBrennan]

Alright, one guy says its horrible, its gotta be! Best example of anecdotal reasoning.  

 

Also, good job ignoring all my other points lol, keep it up.

 

Anyways whatever, we're off topic. Still awaiting on the great almighty rth. 

 

If by "my points" you mean your "long-winded and schizophrenic rambling in a frantic attempt to save face by sounding scientifically sophisticated"....then you are correct, I didn't respond to all of your "points".  I don't tell the crazy bag ladies roaming through Ann Arbor that they're not actually Joan of Ark, either.

[DavidBrennan]

I'd like to think 150M is huge..

 

Yeah, early on Friday when people were talking about it hitting 160 after its Thursday, that was a massive surprise already.  Not to me.  180 is the point where I really began to get floored.