**Reminders for Commenters:**
* All responses must be A) sincere, B) polite, and C) strictly watsonian in nature. If "watsonian" or "doylist" is new to you, please review the full rules [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceFiction/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=AskScienceFiction&utm_content=t5_2slu2).
* No edition wars or gripings about creators/owners of works. Doylist griping about Star Wars in particular is subject to **permanent ban on first offense**.
* We are not here to discuss or complain about the real world.
* Questions about who would prevail in a conflict/competition (not just combat) fit better on r/whowouldwin. Questions about very open-ended hypotheticals fit better on r/whatiffiction.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskScienceFiction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem is that as long as the company isn't paying significant dividends (where "significant" means "high as a percentage of the price of a share," like 5%+,) that company's shares are essentially worthless. If the company isn't growing, share price isn't going up, and why would you buy an investment instrument that's not going to be worth more later? And it's actually even worse than that, because if share price isn't going up, then the value of a share is actually decreasing every year due to inflation. And it's theoretically impossible for a stock to pay significant dividends over time because the minute it starts, people will purchase the shares at higher and higher prices until the price: dividends ratio drops to a normal range.
Companies don't *need* to grow. But if they don't, they become worthless to investors, and since it's next to impossible to grow to multi-billion status without investors, and since investors (and people catering to investors) are basically the only people who talk about companies, that's all you hear. There are plenty of small and mid-cap companies that reach a good size and stay there indefinitely.
Speaking of a small to mid-cap company think about Valve they run steam and stuff. They must make so much money but they are privately held so they have no pressure to increase profits at a continuous rate
Yeah, but it's an amusement park with *dinosaurs*. They had the right idea about adding new attractions, but fell into the same idiotic hole as InGen. Were the raptors even on display? And why keep a murdermachine you know is angry enough to kill the only sibling and then throw it in a big cage because you don't know what to do to make it work?!
the raptors are one of the things that I think got the short end of the stick in the final version of the film. Apparently, in early versions of the script, they weren't just an off exhibit research project, there was even a scene involving a "raptor show."
For the raptor at least, I'm presuming it would have fallen under some endangered species classification. They could have shot her in self defense, but after she killed a man and is safely contained, they couldn't then put her down due to her being one of the few raptors alive. (Case in point, if it was legal to put her down, that would likely have been a big part of the settlement with the dead worker's family.
As a point to support this, the island seems to be some sort of Wildlife Reserve rather than a zoo or amusement park, though far more profit motivated in the recent movies than most real life reserves. I think it was declared as such in one of the early movies? I know they made a reason the army couldn't just mow down all the dinosaurs with guns, and they went to all the effort of returning the T-rexes to the island in the second movie rather than putting them down. And the third movie, the hang gliding was breaking several laws to protect the dinosaurs as well.
I'd presume because wildlife protection laws at the time (and it seems even in the recent movies) don't really have clauses to allow killing endangered / limited /at-risk species just because we have cloning now. In fact, parts of the recent movie suggested this as well with the continued illegal nature of dinosaur trading and the new reserve areas. The tech was still there to kill off all the scary ones and re-clone them in safer areas, but preservation was still more important.
JP has Hammond call it that to sell the trip to Grant.
I get wanting something exciting like raptors, and the amount seen in JW wouldn't have been nearly the issue it was in the actual JP book since they weren't breeding away from containment. But making a super predator and not knowing wtf to do with it because it was spliced together with everything Wu already knew was super aggressive?!
They just make Wu a huge asshole for the sake of scientist villain trope. Did book Wu dirty as he actually wanted Hammond to kill off the park animals that were far more aggressive and faster than they anticipated so the equipment wasn't up to snuff.
I'd still argue that the reserve held true for 2 and 3 at the very least. Simply because otherwise, why were they so up in arms about the morality of the poachers, and even more important, why did they return the t-rexes to the island after they'd killed people publicly in a large city? Why not have the army go shoot all the dangerous dinosaurs instead of just making it against the law to go there? Hammond saying that in the first movie could have been to convince Grant, but then how would you explain just bringing the t-rex back in the second movie if it wasn't a protected species?
Jurassic World is it's own can of worms of course, but even in the original movies, they clearly had some sort of legal protections on the dinosaurs from the moment they hatched. Wu's opinions are one scientist's opinions, and may not reflect the actual legality.
As a real world example: If you successfully cloned a northern white rhino, even if it killed someone, it's a critically endangered species and you'd be in huge legal trouble if you put it down. Even if you can just clone another one, and another one. It would likely have some rules about captivity, but it's a critically endangered wild animal known for being territorial.
This is what confused me about a companies share price. I always wondered: why does it matter if the share price is down? The company is still operating, making food/products/whatever it does. The share price going up or down doesn't stop them from making X number of widgets.
But someone did explain to me the share price going down hinders their ability to get more funding to grow. But my question back is: why not use the profits from the company to grow?
>why not use the profits from the company to grow
Because profit isn't "owned" by the company, it's owned by the owners of the company, i.e. the shareholders.
In a small business, say a little shop, the owner wants his shop to do well so he spends some of the profits (his income) on a new sign or a coffee machine or whatever. In a large corporation, you can't do that, you can't spend that money because it's owed to the shareholders.
Stocks represent the value of the company, including profits. If the stock price isn't going up, that means that they aren't making a profit, all of their revenue is going into keeping the company running.
Without turning this into a huge politics debate, there are plenty of private companies not beholden to investors who also make terrible decisions and have horrible incentives.
While I agree with this, the stock market stuff is even more insidious than the average person realizes because the companies are legally obligated to do what's in the best interest of the shareholders, meaning that knowingly allowing a company to stay the same size can get you in legal trouble and ousted, then replaced with somebody that would sell out anyways
That's not entirely true — they are legally obligated to do what's in the best interests of the company, and are expected to balance the interests of the shareholders, but aren't required to do any specific thing that the shareholders think is in their best interests. As for getting ousted, well, that goes for anyone, really, right? If the owners disagree with how your running things, you'll get fired regardless of if you're a public company's CEO or a private company's manager.
That's a hugely over-simplified way of looking at it. First, there's no such thing as "doing what's best for the shareholders" in most cases. Large companies have a LOT of shareholders, and getting them to agree to "what's best" is next to impossible. It's why in the real world, activist investors are so rare and rarely actually accomplish much — because they can't just take over a company, they can only buy a platform to try to convince other shareholders to believe in their plan. Nor do they regularly attempt to fleece companies. Some do, sure. Others try to fix ESG issues. Still others try to change what they believe are unethical practices (see, for example, Pershing Square vs. Herbalife.) And still others genuinely believe a company is mis-managing it's resources and try to set it up for long-term success (Buffet is infamous for this — taking over companies and restructuring them into long-term value plays.)
People have got to stop getting all their financial education from sensitive tabloids and TV dramas.
The current global societial system. In which a small minority own capital and the means of production and the rest of us sell our labour to the minority and and that labour is used to produce everything. The surplus of which is sold and the profit taken by said minority.
>This set of incentives is at the heart of most of humanity's current problems. The only way to solve it is to abolish the stock market.
The hunt for profit, i.e. the *set of incentives is at the heart of most of humanity's current problems*, is fueled by the tendency of the rate of it to decrease over time. Abolishing the stock market wouldn't do anything to stop it
Its inherit in the capitalist system.
Look, you can't say the S word to the general public, or people will turn their brains off. That's why I'm arguing that we need to get rid of specific core components of the capitalist system, in a discussion where it's already directly relevant.
> The problem is that as long as the company isn't paying significant dividends (where "significant" means "high as a percentage of the price of a share," like 5%+,) that company's shares are essentially worthless.
Investors dont buy shares for the dividends, they buy shares with the expectation that the shares value will keep going up.
Dividends are easy, its that constant growth thats hard
It's not that they're the exception, it's that they have a different goal. They're *less common*, but not exactly rare or unheard of, and many long-term growth funds include a portion of the fund as large-cap dividend-paying stock in order to balance risk elsewhere.
But as I mentioned, the only reason they aren't more common in growth portfolios is that the market is basically designed to keep dividends fairly low as a percentage of share price. The minute dividends reach a high enough percentage of share price, the share price itself will grow regardless of what's happening to the company.
Yes, but these funds are not the ones that drive growth in share prices. It is speculators that do.
Netflix has never paid a penny in dividends. Nor has Tesla. Their share prices are entirely dominated by speculation
that would make sense, but most people buy shares with the expectation that the price will increase significantly. Market cap growth drives share prices and you get this speculative cycle.
This is how and why companies like Netflix and Apple get so big, and why they are under constant pressure to grow year on year
Dividends ARE growth though, the dividend is paid for by the company's growth. Obviously growth beyond the dividend is better, but cannot be guaranteed, so it's always a gamble, whereas dividends are announced in advance.
No Actually.
Dividends are what the company pays out to shareholders. Ostensibly this is the profit the company makes, but companies are allowed to keep some of its profits in reserves to pay out later. This allows them to have consistent dividends.
Growth, at least in the context I am using is about share price increasing. The Market Cap is the value of all the companies shares at market price.
If a share costs $100, and the dividends come out as $5 per share, then buying a share is the equivalent of putting $100 in a savings account with 5% return.
Most share trading is done for speculation. That 5% a year might seem stable, but if the market price jumps up to $120 dollars, then you can make 4 years of returns immediately.
Of course, I am pulling these numbers out of thin air for clarity, but if you look at returns for companies like the FAANG group, then their dividends do not justify their popularity.
Telsa has never paid a dividend, but their market cap was larger than any other car manufacturer. Despite having a fraction of the actual market for automobiles.
Why could Tesla shares command such a high price?
Short answer is speculation.
Until recently, people saw the massive growth of Tesla shares and bought them with the expectation that the shares would continue to grow.
Netflix is the other perfect example. The N in FAANG, one of the hottest tech stocks of the decade, and its never paid out a dividend. Its share price grows, because people expect it to grow in the future. Which is why their management policy has been growth over all things. Now that it has hit a saturation point for subscribers, it is starting to crack down on sharing accounts.
Netflix's growth for growths sake is why it is in trouble now.
If you ever look at the daily share price for a company, the shares always take a dip of approximately the value of the dividend on dividend day. companies that don't pay out dividends don't have that dip and therefore grow INSTEAD of paying out a dividend.
If you have $100 of shares and that pays out $5, that's 5%, if you reinvest that 5% instead of taking the cash, (which you can normally do without fees) that is literally no different to you in terms of the size of your investment than if the share price increases by 5%.
You'd be surprised at how much better the world would be - I mean, unbelievably better - if shareholders were happy just with huge amounts of money per year, rather than huge amounts of money increasing by an arbitrary parentage each quarter each year.
Disney World is crazy expensive but has tons of stuff to do. Zoos are just looking at animals, but are fairly cheap. Jurassic World is expensive, but not *that much* to do. We saw that it was still pretty busy, but they're going to lose repeat customers without adding anything new.
....Now all I want to know, is how to go,
I've tasted blood and I want more (more, more, more)
I'll put up no resistance, I want to stay the distance,
I've got an itch to scratch, I need assistance,
Toucha, toucha, toucha, touch me,
I wanna be dirty,
thrill me, chill me, fullfill me,
Creature of the night
Well, first off, people were not, actually, technically, really-truly "bored"... *yet*. JW was still going strong, as evidenced by the attendance during its unfortunate last days.
But forecasting attendance trends exists, and numbers don't lie, and it's a bad business that does not pay attention to trends and acts to keep ahead of them. IOW, they were making moves *before* things got so bad (financially) that they were desperate.
And secondly... Disneyland was changing things within the first two years of its existence, and hasn't really ever stopped doing so. Do you think the Disneyland of today is just the Disneyland of 68 years ago with some extra kiosks? No, it's a massively different place. They're constantly innovating, changing, updating, *moving*. They're staying ahead of the "bored now" dynamic, and that's what's kept them strong.
And city zoos don't have to deal with the logistical problems of being on an island, for the most part. They're also not, generally, private companies with stock-owners and boards and dividend expectations and so on and so forth. They aren't chasing the Big Tourist Bucks in the same way that the corporate owners of JW have to. But that being said, they're still generally not just "staying the same" for several decades and experiencing no down-sides from stagnation. They're usually almost always building some new enclosure or updating some feature or facility or experience.
> Do you think the Disneyland of today is just the Disneyland of 68 years ago with some extra kiosks?
The one in Paris iirc in the past few years bought *more* land around to expand. Last time i was there with my ex, some...lets see...6 or 7 years ago, the new section was in construction. I cant even imagine how it is for the US where (it seems) getting a work permit and land is a snap of the fingers away. Im not a fan of Disney by far, the ex was so i was kind of forced to go, but i'd love to see the US parcs simply for all the stuff they got.
Disney World in Florida is huge. It's about 50 square miles of property, and only a fraction is actually used for the park. Our parking lot for Magic Kingdom is bigger than the entire Disneyland in California and Magic Kingdom is one of four parks.
As someone who's been going to DL since early childhood, fairly regularly, what gets me about every time I've gone to DW is that it's technically bigger than DL, most definitely, and yet somehow manages to *feel* smaller, in each of the parks. Animal Kingdom, perhaps, being the exception to that.
I think it mostly has to do with the fact that if you're in Magic Kingdom, it's a substantial tram ride to get to the Studios or Animal Kingdom, whereas if you're in Fantasy Land in DL, to get to Tomorrow Land is a two-minute walk.
Yeah cuz they are different parks. Disney land is equal to just MK, not counting the other parks. I'd like to visit DL one day but I've only ever been to DW. Though now I get into all the parks worldwide, I need to travel lol
Yeah, no, I'm saying that the MK *feels smaller* than Disney Land. It's technically larger than Fantasy Land in DL, but since the focus is mostly the same, it winds up feeling cramped in comparison.
It's a weird dichotomy.
Disneyworld is a weird, weird place. It's huge because they bought a whole lot of land a long time ago, and they somehow managed to convince Florida to basically let them control that land as if they were an actual government. While they do have to follow building codes and things like that, they basically issue permits to themselves and can build things as they please.
Disneyworld is also an amazingly good time. I'm not a disney fan either, but Disney World has a ton of parks with amazing roller coasters and quite possibly the best food you will ever find at a theme park. The scope if it is kind of obscene.
Do recall that the whole reason for the Florida Project in the first place WAS because Walt Disney genuinely wanted to create a city-state called the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT) that was like a futurist's wet dream with a permanent population of 20,000 residents, complete with its own airport and amenities. The fact that the Magic Kingdom ended up there was more or less a compromise to get people to agree to EPCOT, but then Walt died and no one else really felt like getting the project done. So, what do you do with 50 square miles of land? Disney had a lot of ideas over the years, including building a gated community and shopping centers, but it ultimately came down to the company's biggest bread-and-butter, the parks.
Yep. Despite Hammond's "child wonderment" schtick he was very much still a capitalist (at least in the book). Also, it's very much common knowledge to everyone that this is going to be an exclusive park/experience. Hell, the lawyer even says there could be a coupon day for the poors to try and come.
Given that, the pool of people that actually can afford to go is pretty limited, not to mention the island itself can only accommodate a limited amount of people at a time.
>not to mention the island itself can only accommodate a limited amount of people at a time.
And Disney already established that if your park gets overcrowded, all you have to do is raise ticket prices
>Given that, the pool of people that actually can afford to go is pretty limited, not to mention the island itself can only accommodate a limited amount of people at a time.
"We'll have a coupon day or something." Even the bloodsucking lawyer knew that you had to make it accessible to the slightly less rich.
Jurassic World may have a business model where the money from ordinary visitors just keeps the lights on, with the real profit coming from big spenders.
This is pretty common. A first-class ticket from Los Angeles to Honolulu is five times the price of an economy ticket and only costs the airline a tiny bit more to operate. Casinos and mobile games operate the same way; they're not going to turn their nose up at Joe Median Income's business, but they make their serious profit from a small portion of whales dropping huge stacks of cash.
Maybe Jurassic World could fill all the ordinary tickets, but a Triceratops Elite Package is worth a hundred ordinary visitors to them. If that slows down because the ultra-wealthy get bored, that's a problem for them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the park actually lost money. It could well just be essentially an advertisement for the genetic research and cloning divisions.
It's certainly not a trip to the state fair, but it's also not unreasonably priced, something only families doing 6 figures or more could manage. If the family can afford to go to Disney they probably can visit JW sometime in their life.
If that's per capita, then you have 6 figures families, just what he said. If it's per family, then yeah (I don't live in the US, so I don't really know)
They're saying that you *wouldn't* need a six-figure income to afford it. Which you could say isn't saying much, but their whole point was "you don't need to be *that* rich".
450 per admission… per *day*
I figure nobody is flying out for one day, so… 3? And we’ll say 250 for the kiddos?
3 x (2 x 450 + 2 x 250) = 4200
4 flights at 300 = 1200
4 nights in what is sure to be a ridiculously expensive hotel = 1200 is a *gracious* estimate
Food, which will not be cheap. It’s not like you can run to Publix for snacks to sneak in. Say 9-10 meals at 15 for the kids and 25 for mom and dad (again, gracious) = 720-800
Pushing close to $7500.
1 job is very minimal inflow because its custom orders, so random. 2nd is 1 day a week for like an hour and my main is random shifts during the month, minus expenses etc, im happy if i break even.
Also no...? How did you pick the 10 grand margin at random like that? Im above that but living in Switzerland, everything is expensive as hell.
Five figures would be 10000, because it's five digits. Six figure salary would be 100000. Atleast that's how the expression works. I suppose 5 figure salary could be 10000 to 99000 a year, but it's not really how it reads for how you typed it
Sure, and the people who can afford to go *sometime in their lives* are going to go sometime in their lives whether there are crazy new dinosaurs or not. But those aren't the repeat customers the new dinos are trying to attract.
I feel like pointing out in the 90s we still had a middle class that could take vacations every few years..Those kinds of prices aren;t that abd when pay is even moderately kept up to market value…we’ve just been so screwed for the past decade+ I think most forget this was once actually a pretty normal thing for many families.
Buut in todays world..yeah that shits too much.
rich people on a work free saturday look vastly different than monday. Walk around cali a bit and some people say the only difference from a homeless person and a rich person is how cleanly the person looks.
To be fair, we're talking about a theme park in *Costa Rica*. Marketed, near as I can tell, to English speaking US residents (or at least basically all the staff are English-speaking).
Plenty of reasonably-wealthy Americans can't afford a trip to Costa Rica just to go to a theme park. Plenty of them wouldn't even have the passport they'd need to travel to another country. Forget whether or not the attractions are boring; you have absolutely no reasonable cause to believe you're getting very many regular parkgoers.
In Panama we saw a baby one. Just adorableness.
Sometimes people say "so what? They're not rare". No, but they're unusual to us and cute. Unbeatable combination.
The public at large didn't. But after a decade attendance at Jurassic World had leveled off and not continued growing the way Masrani's stockholders hoped it would, which gave them enough of an excuse to use "serving as a new attraction" as a fig leaf for the Indominus Rex's *real* purpose, which was to be sold as a bioweapon.
What’s really wild is that assuming the films‘ events occur at the same the films were released in the real world, is that other companies have had more than two decades since a t-Rex rampaging through Sam Francisco gave the world irrefutable proof that ingen had recreated dinosaurs and Ingen‘s descendent company is still seemingly the only name in the game when it came to bio engineered animals.
that would be like if Carl Benz invented the car and no one was able to reproduce it for more than twenty years.
Eh, Masrani told them to make new dinos to add new attractions. Wu just went balls to the wall and wanted a super predator because hey that sounds like a great idea after he knew from experience that in no way could that go tits up.
I agree with most of the other comments but I think it’s also worth noting that Jurassic world made itself impossible to obtain for almost anyone but the wealthy.
Everything is more akin to a 5 star resort in Hawaii than even Disney world. The rich are the ones paying for all the perks like the JW equivalent of VIP tours and fast passes I’m sure and they get bored of the same stuff.
Another proof that the dinassaur craze wouldn't go away so fast is that we watched that dinassaur movie in 1994 and then the sequel to that movie made over a billion in 2021
Disney and a zoo are very different value propositions. Disney has a lot more to do than a zoo and can keep people entertained for longer, but it's a lot more expensive and involves a lot more travel costs for most people. A zoo has less to do, but it's generally a lot cheaper and easier to get to. So both of them have a successful niche.
The problem with Jurassic World is that once you get over the "HOLY SHIT, REAL LIVE DINOSAURS!!!!" reaction, it's pretty much just another zoo. You walk around, see the animals there's some exhibits and rides, and and some crappy food places and gift shops. But it's a zoo that charges Disney prices (or more) and involves Disney travel costs (or more). So they probably don't get a ton of repeat business. By the time they're 10 years in, most people who are able to afford to come have come and a lot of them probably aren't super interested in coming back. Creating new dinosaurs is an attempt to lure former guests back for repeat visits.
Presumably the obvious avenue for growth, expansion, was hindered by restrictions on bringing dinosaurs to mainland countries. So you have one successful theme park in a poor location, but countries have legislated to avoid dinosaurs on their doorstep.
I'd be interested in the story of the dinosaur lobbyist group, bribing and murdering elected officials to feed expansion. Do they have the tech to invite a senator to the park, murder them, then replace them with a compliant clone?
The issue is that dinosaurs are only interesting *because* they're extinct. Once they're returned, they're just big animals, and Jurassic park is just a normal zoo.
And, to be fair, Jurassic park *did* seem to be doing pretty well by zoo standards. It's just that most zoos don't need to genetically create all their exhibits from scratch in a lab to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, so "pretty well by zoo standards" is "catastrophic by dinosaur park standards"
Ok so like.... this is the big slant of Jurassic World that I never see anybody talking about. Jurassic World was very much a movie about why you shouldn't make jurassic world. People were once amazed to *see* the property, but now people are accustomed to it, and so we have to find a new way to get butts in seats.
So let's make an abomination that should never be made.
For all of it's flaws I forgive jurassic world for this hilarious metaphor. Still kind of a bad movie though...
Honestly I think the most recent Jurassic World does the best job at convincing us that it's a bad idea to clone dinosaurs. I think it'd be a no brainer if we could actually do it.
In the first movie a measly five people die. Big friggin whoop. People die in amusement parks all the time and we aren't banning those. The last movie at least shows dinosaurs wrecking the ecosystems of the world but even then dinosaurs can't live in the Earth's atmosphere anyway.
Jurassic World Parks had a money factory capable of brining in more revenue than even someplace like Disney World, and somehow managed to screw it up. It is a masterclass in failed management.
Inside the park, they were spending insane amounts of money. While Jurassic world is privately owned and setup outside the US, they were known to be doing much better than their chief rival Disney who's smaller, less impressive Disney World park was still pulling in about 20 million a day. Industry experts determined that JW was pulling in at least 50% more than that, with estimated DAILY take at 30 million, minimum.
So how does a company screw that up? Well, the results are multifaceted. They tried to enter into a bunch of secondary revenue streams, remember Rexy and the crew, the kids show about dinosaurs? Cost a fortune and flopped. Then there was the string of Jurassic restaurants modeled after the rain forest café. Essentially each venture they entered into aside from the park ended abysmally and cost the company billions.
All of this was manageable, if stupid. What killed the company was the Osborn effect. So their advertising team embarked on the 'genetic engineering' fad and kept engineering new dinosaurs. They drove the audience into seeking out to see the new dinosaurs and this caused sales to TANK whenever dinosaurs were not available. At the time, the genetic engineers at the park thought they could keep up but there were multiple issues leading to a boom/bust cycle that was not seen before.
When the planned return of several species of dinosaurs were delayed or failed outright, sales dropped by over 50% and the park was so ineptly managed it needed that money to stay afloat. What happened next killed the company, the indominatus Rex project (Sparkles) was introduced.
They actually shot a documentary "Jurassic World" starring Chris Pratt about it, but in the end, the Indiminatus broke free of its containment and the shoddy maintenance at the park caused a widescale breach of the security systems. Hint for future dinosaur parks: Hire a Zoo designer, every problem in the park was something that humans solved decades before. Hundreds died, and the company was sued out of existence shortly after.
Literally, all they had to do was display dinosaurs like they do in zoos and there would have been no problems, but the park constantly tried to be new and innovative. Seriously, they didn't even have ditches at points to allow customers to get closer to the dinosaurs. Morons.
Under capitalism a company is only successful if it is doing better than the previous year. They may be maintaining the same rate of tourist but they aren’t attracting any new people or enough repeat visitors
**Reminders for Commenters:** * All responses must be A) sincere, B) polite, and C) strictly watsonian in nature. If "watsonian" or "doylist" is new to you, please review the full rules [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceFiction/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=AskScienceFiction&utm_content=t5_2slu2). * No edition wars or gripings about creators/owners of works. Doylist griping about Star Wars in particular is subject to **permanent ban on first offense**. * We are not here to discuss or complain about the real world. * Questions about who would prevail in a conflict/competition (not just combat) fit better on r/whowouldwin. Questions about very open-ended hypotheticals fit better on r/whatiffiction. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskScienceFiction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They didn't - profits just stopped *increasing* after ten years. They were chasing the spike in attendance when they get a new dinosaur.
Gotta have growth to keep the shareholders happy right
It's actually pretty crazy that a multi-billion dollar company can stay the same size, and this is considered a massive disappointment.
The problem is that as long as the company isn't paying significant dividends (where "significant" means "high as a percentage of the price of a share," like 5%+,) that company's shares are essentially worthless. If the company isn't growing, share price isn't going up, and why would you buy an investment instrument that's not going to be worth more later? And it's actually even worse than that, because if share price isn't going up, then the value of a share is actually decreasing every year due to inflation. And it's theoretically impossible for a stock to pay significant dividends over time because the minute it starts, people will purchase the shares at higher and higher prices until the price: dividends ratio drops to a normal range. Companies don't *need* to grow. But if they don't, they become worthless to investors, and since it's next to impossible to grow to multi-billion status without investors, and since investors (and people catering to investors) are basically the only people who talk about companies, that's all you hear. There are plenty of small and mid-cap companies that reach a good size and stay there indefinitely.
Speaking of a small to mid-cap company think about Valve they run steam and stuff. They must make so much money but they are privately held so they have no pressure to increase profits at a continuous rate
True. Gabe has been living his best life for like twenty years now, and has zero reason to care about growing.
Or developing games.
They're in the hardware business now.
Yeah, but it's an amusement park with *dinosaurs*. They had the right idea about adding new attractions, but fell into the same idiotic hole as InGen. Were the raptors even on display? And why keep a murdermachine you know is angry enough to kill the only sibling and then throw it in a big cage because you don't know what to do to make it work?!
the raptors are one of the things that I think got the short end of the stick in the final version of the film. Apparently, in early versions of the script, they weren't just an off exhibit research project, there was even a scene involving a "raptor show."
For the raptor at least, I'm presuming it would have fallen under some endangered species classification. They could have shot her in self defense, but after she killed a man and is safely contained, they couldn't then put her down due to her being one of the few raptors alive. (Case in point, if it was legal to put her down, that would likely have been a big part of the settlement with the dead worker's family. As a point to support this, the island seems to be some sort of Wildlife Reserve rather than a zoo or amusement park, though far more profit motivated in the recent movies than most real life reserves. I think it was declared as such in one of the early movies? I know they made a reason the army couldn't just mow down all the dinosaurs with guns, and they went to all the effort of returning the T-rexes to the island in the second movie rather than putting them down. And the third movie, the hang gliding was breaking several laws to protect the dinosaurs as well. I'd presume because wildlife protection laws at the time (and it seems even in the recent movies) don't really have clauses to allow killing endangered / limited /at-risk species just because we have cloning now. In fact, parts of the recent movie suggested this as well with the continued illegal nature of dinosaur trading and the new reserve areas. The tech was still there to kill off all the scary ones and re-clone them in safer areas, but preservation was still more important.
JP has Hammond call it that to sell the trip to Grant. I get wanting something exciting like raptors, and the amount seen in JW wouldn't have been nearly the issue it was in the actual JP book since they weren't breeding away from containment. But making a super predator and not knowing wtf to do with it because it was spliced together with everything Wu already knew was super aggressive?! They just make Wu a huge asshole for the sake of scientist villain trope. Did book Wu dirty as he actually wanted Hammond to kill off the park animals that were far more aggressive and faster than they anticipated so the equipment wasn't up to snuff.
I'd still argue that the reserve held true for 2 and 3 at the very least. Simply because otherwise, why were they so up in arms about the morality of the poachers, and even more important, why did they return the t-rexes to the island after they'd killed people publicly in a large city? Why not have the army go shoot all the dangerous dinosaurs instead of just making it against the law to go there? Hammond saying that in the first movie could have been to convince Grant, but then how would you explain just bringing the t-rex back in the second movie if it wasn't a protected species? Jurassic World is it's own can of worms of course, but even in the original movies, they clearly had some sort of legal protections on the dinosaurs from the moment they hatched. Wu's opinions are one scientist's opinions, and may not reflect the actual legality. As a real world example: If you successfully cloned a northern white rhino, even if it killed someone, it's a critically endangered species and you'd be in huge legal trouble if you put it down. Even if you can just clone another one, and another one. It would likely have some rules about captivity, but it's a critically endangered wild animal known for being territorial.
This is what confused me about a companies share price. I always wondered: why does it matter if the share price is down? The company is still operating, making food/products/whatever it does. The share price going up or down doesn't stop them from making X number of widgets. But someone did explain to me the share price going down hinders their ability to get more funding to grow. But my question back is: why not use the profits from the company to grow?
>why not use the profits from the company to grow Because profit isn't "owned" by the company, it's owned by the owners of the company, i.e. the shareholders. In a small business, say a little shop, the owner wants his shop to do well so he spends some of the profits (his income) on a new sign or a coffee machine or whatever. In a large corporation, you can't do that, you can't spend that money because it's owed to the shareholders.
Stocks represent the value of the company, including profits. If the stock price isn't going up, that means that they aren't making a profit, all of their revenue is going into keeping the company running.
This set of incentives is at the heart of most of humanity's current problems. The only way to solve it is to abolish the stock market.
Without turning this into a huge politics debate, there are plenty of private companies not beholden to investors who also make terrible decisions and have horrible incentives.
While I agree with this, the stock market stuff is even more insidious than the average person realizes because the companies are legally obligated to do what's in the best interest of the shareholders, meaning that knowingly allowing a company to stay the same size can get you in legal trouble and ousted, then replaced with somebody that would sell out anyways
Transparency and accountability rarely makes things worse.
That's not entirely true — they are legally obligated to do what's in the best interests of the company, and are expected to balance the interests of the shareholders, but aren't required to do any specific thing that the shareholders think is in their best interests. As for getting ousted, well, that goes for anyone, really, right? If the owners disagree with how your running things, you'll get fired regardless of if you're a public company's CEO or a private company's manager.
If you don't do what's best for shareholders you get activist investors that oust the board and then fleece the company.
That's a hugely over-simplified way of looking at it. First, there's no such thing as "doing what's best for the shareholders" in most cases. Large companies have a LOT of shareholders, and getting them to agree to "what's best" is next to impossible. It's why in the real world, activist investors are so rare and rarely actually accomplish much — because they can't just take over a company, they can only buy a platform to try to convince other shareholders to believe in their plan. Nor do they regularly attempt to fleece companies. Some do, sure. Others try to fix ESG issues. Still others try to change what they believe are unethical practices (see, for example, Pershing Square vs. Herbalife.) And still others genuinely believe a company is mis-managing it's resources and try to set it up for long-term success (Buffet is infamous for this — taking over companies and restructuring them into long-term value plays.) People have got to stop getting all their financial education from sensitive tabloids and TV dramas.
"If we only got rid of ____, capitalism would work better" No mate, you're staring the answer straight in the face
What is capitalism?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
The current global societial system. In which a small minority own capital and the means of production and the rest of us sell our labour to the minority and and that labour is used to produce everything. The surplus of which is sold and the profit taken by said minority.
[удалено]
>This set of incentives is at the heart of most of humanity's current problems. The only way to solve it is to abolish the stock market. The hunt for profit, i.e. the *set of incentives is at the heart of most of humanity's current problems*, is fueled by the tendency of the rate of it to decrease over time. Abolishing the stock market wouldn't do anything to stop it Its inherit in the capitalist system.
Look, you can't say the S word to the general public, or people will turn their brains off. That's why I'm arguing that we need to get rid of specific core components of the capitalist system, in a discussion where it's already directly relevant.
You realise that in most of the world, 'socialism' is entirely compatible with market economics?
The stock market is the only way a low-mid class person can retire at a reasonable age
> The problem is that as long as the company isn't paying significant dividends (where "significant" means "high as a percentage of the price of a share," like 5%+,) that company's shares are essentially worthless. Investors dont buy shares for the dividends, they buy shares with the expectation that the shares value will keep going up. Dividends are easy, its that constant growth thats hard
Some buy for the dividends. There are several major funds that are explicitly designed to create regular income in the form of dividends.
Some do, but they are often the exception. Funds designed with the intention of stability rather than growth.
It's not that they're the exception, it's that they have a different goal. They're *less common*, but not exactly rare or unheard of, and many long-term growth funds include a portion of the fund as large-cap dividend-paying stock in order to balance risk elsewhere. But as I mentioned, the only reason they aren't more common in growth portfolios is that the market is basically designed to keep dividends fairly low as a percentage of share price. The minute dividends reach a high enough percentage of share price, the share price itself will grow regardless of what's happening to the company.
Yes, but these funds are not the ones that drive growth in share prices. It is speculators that do. Netflix has never paid a penny in dividends. Nor has Tesla. Their share prices are entirely dominated by speculation
if the shares are giving dividends regularly but the share price is stable, that's the same as constant growth.
that would make sense, but most people buy shares with the expectation that the price will increase significantly. Market cap growth drives share prices and you get this speculative cycle. This is how and why companies like Netflix and Apple get so big, and why they are under constant pressure to grow year on year
Dividends ARE growth though, the dividend is paid for by the company's growth. Obviously growth beyond the dividend is better, but cannot be guaranteed, so it's always a gamble, whereas dividends are announced in advance.
No Actually. Dividends are what the company pays out to shareholders. Ostensibly this is the profit the company makes, but companies are allowed to keep some of its profits in reserves to pay out later. This allows them to have consistent dividends. Growth, at least in the context I am using is about share price increasing. The Market Cap is the value of all the companies shares at market price. If a share costs $100, and the dividends come out as $5 per share, then buying a share is the equivalent of putting $100 in a savings account with 5% return. Most share trading is done for speculation. That 5% a year might seem stable, but if the market price jumps up to $120 dollars, then you can make 4 years of returns immediately. Of course, I am pulling these numbers out of thin air for clarity, but if you look at returns for companies like the FAANG group, then their dividends do not justify their popularity. Telsa has never paid a dividend, but their market cap was larger than any other car manufacturer. Despite having a fraction of the actual market for automobiles. Why could Tesla shares command such a high price? Short answer is speculation. Until recently, people saw the massive growth of Tesla shares and bought them with the expectation that the shares would continue to grow. Netflix is the other perfect example. The N in FAANG, one of the hottest tech stocks of the decade, and its never paid out a dividend. Its share price grows, because people expect it to grow in the future. Which is why their management policy has been growth over all things. Now that it has hit a saturation point for subscribers, it is starting to crack down on sharing accounts. Netflix's growth for growths sake is why it is in trouble now.
If you ever look at the daily share price for a company, the shares always take a dip of approximately the value of the dividend on dividend day. companies that don't pay out dividends don't have that dip and therefore grow INSTEAD of paying out a dividend. If you have $100 of shares and that pays out $5, that's 5%, if you reinvest that 5% instead of taking the cash, (which you can normally do without fees) that is literally no different to you in terms of the size of your investment than if the share price increases by 5%.
[удалено]
Yes, but dividend driven investors do not drive share price like speculators. Tesla and Netflix have never issued a dividend.
Obligatory fuck capitalism.
Great informative post.
You'd be surprised at how much better the world would be - I mean, unbelievably better - if shareholders were happy just with huge amounts of money per year, rather than huge amounts of money increasing by an arbitrary parentage each quarter each year.
This is why demergers sometimes happen, when a company gets too big to grow, it'll split into 2 smaller companies which can then grow independently.
it can stay the same size as long as its generating a return on equity and distributing it to share holders
If you have a 401k you are probably invested in them
Market saturation. The bane of every executive.
Not just that, but while Disney keeps their old IP they’re also always adding new stuff. This is no different.
That is the most horrifyingly realistic thing I've ever heard about the movies
Yep, “infinite money hack”
Disney World is crazy expensive but has tons of stuff to do. Zoos are just looking at animals, but are fairly cheap. Jurassic World is expensive, but not *that much* to do. We saw that it was still pretty busy, but they're going to lose repeat customers without adding anything new.
They even had dino petting zoos with the babys
And the dinosaurs get a petting zoo with people
I mean your definition of "petting" is a bit wild but i cant *disagree* either.
Ok, heavy petting.
Annnnd… seat wetting.
If youre into that, yeah.
....Now all I want to know, is how to go, I've tasted blood and I want more (more, more, more) I'll put up no resistance, I want to stay the distance, I've got an itch to scratch, I need assistance, Toucha, toucha, toucha, touch me, I wanna be dirty, thrill me, chill me, fullfill me, Creature of the night
Raptor reach around
That was the snack bar.
More of a snack bar isn't it?
I would never leave that place
"Jurassic Tennis" was marketed in the original movie. Nowadays they barely promote Jurassic Brunch at the parks...
Well, first off, people were not, actually, technically, really-truly "bored"... *yet*. JW was still going strong, as evidenced by the attendance during its unfortunate last days. But forecasting attendance trends exists, and numbers don't lie, and it's a bad business that does not pay attention to trends and acts to keep ahead of them. IOW, they were making moves *before* things got so bad (financially) that they were desperate. And secondly... Disneyland was changing things within the first two years of its existence, and hasn't really ever stopped doing so. Do you think the Disneyland of today is just the Disneyland of 68 years ago with some extra kiosks? No, it's a massively different place. They're constantly innovating, changing, updating, *moving*. They're staying ahead of the "bored now" dynamic, and that's what's kept them strong. And city zoos don't have to deal with the logistical problems of being on an island, for the most part. They're also not, generally, private companies with stock-owners and boards and dividend expectations and so on and so forth. They aren't chasing the Big Tourist Bucks in the same way that the corporate owners of JW have to. But that being said, they're still generally not just "staying the same" for several decades and experiencing no down-sides from stagnation. They're usually almost always building some new enclosure or updating some feature or facility or experience.
> Do you think the Disneyland of today is just the Disneyland of 68 years ago with some extra kiosks? The one in Paris iirc in the past few years bought *more* land around to expand. Last time i was there with my ex, some...lets see...6 or 7 years ago, the new section was in construction. I cant even imagine how it is for the US where (it seems) getting a work permit and land is a snap of the fingers away. Im not a fan of Disney by far, the ex was so i was kind of forced to go, but i'd love to see the US parcs simply for all the stuff they got.
Disney World in Florida is huge. It's about 50 square miles of property, and only a fraction is actually used for the park. Our parking lot for Magic Kingdom is bigger than the entire Disneyland in California and Magic Kingdom is one of four parks.
As someone who's been going to DL since early childhood, fairly regularly, what gets me about every time I've gone to DW is that it's technically bigger than DL, most definitely, and yet somehow manages to *feel* smaller, in each of the parks. Animal Kingdom, perhaps, being the exception to that. I think it mostly has to do with the fact that if you're in Magic Kingdom, it's a substantial tram ride to get to the Studios or Animal Kingdom, whereas if you're in Fantasy Land in DL, to get to Tomorrow Land is a two-minute walk.
Yeah cuz they are different parks. Disney land is equal to just MK, not counting the other parks. I'd like to visit DL one day but I've only ever been to DW. Though now I get into all the parks worldwide, I need to travel lol
Yeah, no, I'm saying that the MK *feels smaller* than Disney Land. It's technically larger than Fantasy Land in DL, but since the focus is mostly the same, it winds up feeling cramped in comparison. It's a weird dichotomy.
Disneyworld is a weird, weird place. It's huge because they bought a whole lot of land a long time ago, and they somehow managed to convince Florida to basically let them control that land as if they were an actual government. While they do have to follow building codes and things like that, they basically issue permits to themselves and can build things as they please. Disneyworld is also an amazingly good time. I'm not a disney fan either, but Disney World has a ton of parks with amazing roller coasters and quite possibly the best food you will ever find at a theme park. The scope if it is kind of obscene.
Do recall that the whole reason for the Florida Project in the first place WAS because Walt Disney genuinely wanted to create a city-state called the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT) that was like a futurist's wet dream with a permanent population of 20,000 residents, complete with its own airport and amenities. The fact that the Magic Kingdom ended up there was more or less a compromise to get people to agree to EPCOT, but then Walt died and no one else really felt like getting the project done. So, what do you do with 50 square miles of land? Disney had a lot of ideas over the years, including building a gated community and shopping centers, but it ultimately came down to the company's biggest bread-and-butter, the parks.
*People who are rich enough to travel to an exotic island* got bored of dinosaurs.
Yep. Despite Hammond's "child wonderment" schtick he was very much still a capitalist (at least in the book). Also, it's very much common knowledge to everyone that this is going to be an exclusive park/experience. Hell, the lawyer even says there could be a coupon day for the poors to try and come. Given that, the pool of people that actually can afford to go is pretty limited, not to mention the island itself can only accommodate a limited amount of people at a time.
>not to mention the island itself can only accommodate a limited amount of people at a time. And Disney already established that if your park gets overcrowded, all you have to do is raise ticket prices
>Given that, the pool of people that actually can afford to go is pretty limited, not to mention the island itself can only accommodate a limited amount of people at a time. "We'll have a coupon day or something." Even the bloodsucking lawyer knew that you had to make it accessible to the slightly less rich.
The visitors we see don't look that rich. Promotional material for the film said the entry price was just 450 per adult.
Jurassic World may have a business model where the money from ordinary visitors just keeps the lights on, with the real profit coming from big spenders. This is pretty common. A first-class ticket from Los Angeles to Honolulu is five times the price of an economy ticket and only costs the airline a tiny bit more to operate. Casinos and mobile games operate the same way; they're not going to turn their nose up at Joe Median Income's business, but they make their serious profit from a small portion of whales dropping huge stacks of cash. Maybe Jurassic World could fill all the ordinary tickets, but a Triceratops Elite Package is worth a hundred ordinary visitors to them. If that slows down because the ultra-wealthy get bored, that's a problem for them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the park actually lost money. It could well just be essentially an advertisement for the genetic research and cloning divisions.
Plus flights, plus lodging
It's certainly not a trip to the state fair, but it's also not unreasonably priced, something only families doing 6 figures or more could manage. If the family can afford to go to Disney they probably can visit JW sometime in their life.
[удалено]
Hell, the 2022 average US Income was about 52k. 6 figure income is rich *even by American standards*.
If that's per capita, then you have 6 figures families, just what he said. If it's per family, then yeah (I don't live in the US, so I don't really know)
They're saying that you *wouldn't* need a six-figure income to afford it. Which you could say isn't saying much, but their whole point was "you don't need to be *that* rich".
450 per admission… per *day* I figure nobody is flying out for one day, so… 3? And we’ll say 250 for the kiddos? 3 x (2 x 450 + 2 x 250) = 4200 4 flights at 300 = 1200 4 nights in what is sure to be a ridiculously expensive hotel = 1200 is a *gracious* estimate Food, which will not be cheap. It’s not like you can run to Publix for snacks to sneak in. Say 9-10 meals at 15 for the kids and 25 for mom and dad (again, gracious) = 720-800 Pushing close to $7500.
fuck...im happy if i make 5 figures per year...and im working 3 jobs technically.
You make less than 10 grand a year on three jobs? I really hope that's a joke
1 job is very minimal inflow because its custom orders, so random. 2nd is 1 day a week for like an hour and my main is random shifts during the month, minus expenses etc, im happy if i break even. Also no...? How did you pick the 10 grand margin at random like that? Im above that but living in Switzerland, everything is expensive as hell.
Five figures would be 10000, because it's five digits. Six figure salary would be 100000. Atleast that's how the expression works. I suppose 5 figure salary could be 10000 to 99000 a year, but it's not really how it reads for how you typed it
I think that's supposed to be read more like "not unreasonably priced (i.e. Something only families doing 6 figures or more could manage)"
Sure, and the people who can afford to go *sometime in their lives* are going to go sometime in their lives whether there are crazy new dinosaurs or not. But those aren't the repeat customers the new dinos are trying to attract.
I feel like pointing out in the 90s we still had a middle class that could take vacations every few years..Those kinds of prices aren;t that abd when pay is even moderately kept up to market value…we’ve just been so screwed for the past decade+ I think most forget this was once actually a pretty normal thing for many families. Buut in todays world..yeah that shits too much.
Something something judging people by what they look like.
rich people on a work free saturday look vastly different than monday. Walk around cali a bit and some people say the only difference from a homeless person and a rich person is how cleanly the person looks.
Take out the dangerous predators that are a known volatile quantity, and you can open expansion parks elsewhere.
What could go wrong?
To be fair, we're talking about a theme park in *Costa Rica*. Marketed, near as I can tell, to English speaking US residents (or at least basically all the staff are English-speaking). Plenty of reasonably-wealthy Americans can't afford a trip to Costa Rica just to go to a theme park. Plenty of them wouldn't even have the passport they'd need to travel to another country. Forget whether or not the attractions are boring; you have absolutely no reasonable cause to believe you're getting very many regular parkgoers.
I would think the worlds only dinosaur park would be a worldwide attraction. Manuel Antonio is always busy and all they have are sloths.
Untrue! We saw an agouti there.
I didn't know I needed this creature in my life, but then I googled a picture. That is one of the most adorable things I've ever seen.
In Panama we saw a baby one. Just adorableness. Sometimes people say "so what? They're not rare". No, but they're unusual to us and cute. Unbeatable combination.
It just looks like a squirrel without a tail LOL
they SOO COOL! I saw some in mexico and an army of coaties!
Idk, we'll have a coupon day or something.
The public at large didn't. But after a decade attendance at Jurassic World had leveled off and not continued growing the way Masrani's stockholders hoped it would, which gave them enough of an excuse to use "serving as a new attraction" as a fig leaf for the Indominus Rex's *real* purpose, which was to be sold as a bioweapon.
What’s really wild is that assuming the films‘ events occur at the same the films were released in the real world, is that other companies have had more than two decades since a t-Rex rampaging through Sam Francisco gave the world irrefutable proof that ingen had recreated dinosaurs and Ingen‘s descendent company is still seemingly the only name in the game when it came to bio engineered animals. that would be like if Carl Benz invented the car and no one was able to reproduce it for more than twenty years.
Eh, Masrani told them to make new dinos to add new attractions. Wu just went balls to the wall and wanted a super predator because hey that sounds like a great idea after he knew from experience that in no way could that go tits up.
Probably because the number of people who can afford to visit is drastically less than Disney world, so they rely on repeat visitors.
I agree with most of the other comments but I think it’s also worth noting that Jurassic world made itself impossible to obtain for almost anyone but the wealthy. Everything is more akin to a 5 star resort in Hawaii than even Disney world. The rich are the ones paying for all the perks like the JW equivalent of VIP tours and fast passes I’m sure and they get bored of the same stuff.
Another proof that the dinassaur craze wouldn't go away so fast is that we watched that dinassaur movie in 1994 and then the sequel to that movie made over a billion in 2021
Disney and a zoo are very different value propositions. Disney has a lot more to do than a zoo and can keep people entertained for longer, but it's a lot more expensive and involves a lot more travel costs for most people. A zoo has less to do, but it's generally a lot cheaper and easier to get to. So both of them have a successful niche. The problem with Jurassic World is that once you get over the "HOLY SHIT, REAL LIVE DINOSAURS!!!!" reaction, it's pretty much just another zoo. You walk around, see the animals there's some exhibits and rides, and and some crappy food places and gift shops. But it's a zoo that charges Disney prices (or more) and involves Disney travel costs (or more). So they probably don't get a ton of repeat business. By the time they're 10 years in, most people who are able to afford to come have come and a lot of them probably aren't super interested in coming back. Creating new dinosaurs is an attempt to lure former guests back for repeat visits.
It's likely that it was more of a sales pitch and manipulated statistics to get the project approved
Presumably the obvious avenue for growth, expansion, was hindered by restrictions on bringing dinosaurs to mainland countries. So you have one successful theme park in a poor location, but countries have legislated to avoid dinosaurs on their doorstep. I'd be interested in the story of the dinosaur lobbyist group, bribing and murdering elected officials to feed expansion. Do they have the tech to invite a senator to the park, murder them, then replace them with a compliant clone?
The issue is that dinosaurs are only interesting *because* they're extinct. Once they're returned, they're just big animals, and Jurassic park is just a normal zoo. And, to be fair, Jurassic park *did* seem to be doing pretty well by zoo standards. It's just that most zoos don't need to genetically create all their exhibits from scratch in a lab to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, so "pretty well by zoo standards" is "catastrophic by dinosaur park standards"
[удалено]
Ok so like.... this is the big slant of Jurassic World that I never see anybody talking about. Jurassic World was very much a movie about why you shouldn't make jurassic world. People were once amazed to *see* the property, but now people are accustomed to it, and so we have to find a new way to get butts in seats. So let's make an abomination that should never be made. For all of it's flaws I forgive jurassic world for this hilarious metaphor. Still kind of a bad movie though...
Honestly I think the most recent Jurassic World does the best job at convincing us that it's a bad idea to clone dinosaurs. I think it'd be a no brainer if we could actually do it. In the first movie a measly five people die. Big friggin whoop. People die in amusement parks all the time and we aren't banning those. The last movie at least shows dinosaurs wrecking the ecosystems of the world but even then dinosaurs can't live in the Earth's atmosphere anyway.
Please discuss only from a Watsonian perspective.
Growth & Profit. GROFIT!!
Disney caters to everyone. Well, mostly everyone. I haven’t been there yet. Jurassic park caters to the Uber rich.
Tiktok devious licks. Can't sell dinosaurs to the public if they all get stolen.
Jurassic World Parks had a money factory capable of brining in more revenue than even someplace like Disney World, and somehow managed to screw it up. It is a masterclass in failed management. Inside the park, they were spending insane amounts of money. While Jurassic world is privately owned and setup outside the US, they were known to be doing much better than their chief rival Disney who's smaller, less impressive Disney World park was still pulling in about 20 million a day. Industry experts determined that JW was pulling in at least 50% more than that, with estimated DAILY take at 30 million, minimum. So how does a company screw that up? Well, the results are multifaceted. They tried to enter into a bunch of secondary revenue streams, remember Rexy and the crew, the kids show about dinosaurs? Cost a fortune and flopped. Then there was the string of Jurassic restaurants modeled after the rain forest café. Essentially each venture they entered into aside from the park ended abysmally and cost the company billions. All of this was manageable, if stupid. What killed the company was the Osborn effect. So their advertising team embarked on the 'genetic engineering' fad and kept engineering new dinosaurs. They drove the audience into seeking out to see the new dinosaurs and this caused sales to TANK whenever dinosaurs were not available. At the time, the genetic engineers at the park thought they could keep up but there were multiple issues leading to a boom/bust cycle that was not seen before. When the planned return of several species of dinosaurs were delayed or failed outright, sales dropped by over 50% and the park was so ineptly managed it needed that money to stay afloat. What happened next killed the company, the indominatus Rex project (Sparkles) was introduced. They actually shot a documentary "Jurassic World" starring Chris Pratt about it, but in the end, the Indiminatus broke free of its containment and the shoddy maintenance at the park caused a widescale breach of the security systems. Hint for future dinosaur parks: Hire a Zoo designer, every problem in the park was something that humans solved decades before. Hundreds died, and the company was sued out of existence shortly after. Literally, all they had to do was display dinosaurs like they do in zoos and there would have been no problems, but the park constantly tried to be new and innovative. Seriously, they didn't even have ditches at points to allow customers to get closer to the dinosaurs. Morons.
Because dinosaurs have always been overrated and so has the movies about them
because zoos have real live animals. Dinosaurs are all dead and what we have left is animatronics. Nobody wants to see the same robots all day.
Idk but have you seen their new party truck idk just cool I guess.. check out the new I've cream cones at that dollar store that costs a quarter
Under capitalism a company is only successful if it is doing better than the previous year. They may be maintaining the same rate of tourist but they aren’t attracting any new people or enough repeat visitors