|
|
Post by sam1 on Aug 11, 2018 19:20:01 GMT 5
Sharks look realistic in terms of appearance, strength, speed and maneuverability, and not exaggerated in terms of size eith Yet the paleobiologist has given this Meg 1 OUT OF 10 in terms of scientific accuracy. So eh, no I don't buy your little assessment sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Aug 11, 2018 19:35:08 GMT 5
Alright guys I would like to ask what do you predict about 1: This movies total box office 2: IMDB score out of /10 3: Critic Reviews My prediction: 1: Total Box Office Prediction $300-600 million 2: 4/10-8/10 on IMDB 3: "Fun movie, entertaining" "Wanted to see statham punch a shark, not disappointed" "The new shark movie we all needed" 1: $120M USA, $300M worldwide 2: 5.4/10 IMDB score 3: 36% metacritic score It's just a monster movie with meg being as realistic as the GWS from the worst Jaws movies Why what a surprise, my prediction ends up way more realistic than yours. Heck, I could actually end up pretty spot on. The movie currently holds 6.3 on IMDB and 45% on metacritic - and those scores almost always deflate significantly during the theatrical - and the opening weekend result also indicates the total around my prediction. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 11, 2018 19:46:30 GMT 5
No need to be arrogant... sam, lmao. My IMDB score averages to 6/10, neither did I put a metacritic score. Congratulations if you are correct, you seem to heavily exceed in terms of predicting movie box office. Maybe I did overestimate the movie at the time? Also my box office averages at 450 million. Not exactly impossible but unlikely. Yes one paleobiologist was correct and represents the entire scientific community. I would give it a 3 or a 4. But a 1 is sharknado or asylum film level which is an extreme exaggeration.
”Still, Sues said a few elements are actually correct - such as the jaws and teeth, and the fact that it could feasibly have rammed into ships and underwater subs, had they existed at the same time.
He also revealed that its ability to bite a whole ship in half is overall realistic”
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Aug 11, 2018 19:50:31 GMT 5
Sharks look realistic in terms of appearance, strength, speed and maneuverability, and not exaggerated in terms of size eith Yet the paleobiologist has given this Meg 1 OUT OF 10 in terms of scientific accuracy. So eh, no I don't buy your little assessment sorry. His assessment is about the movie on the whole. He didn't say that Megalodon was unrealistic in it, even in terms of behavior. Three major reasons for scientific inaccuracy: 1. Megalodon cannot live in abyss because it is a food-poor environment and water pressure is much greater there. 2. Megalodon is extinct. 3. Megalodon would not expend lot of energy on chasing individual humans - too small. A beach is another story [if filled with humans]. Personally, I consider this movie mediocre. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 11, 2018 20:00:30 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 12, 2018 18:09:37 GMT 5
Sharks look realistic in terms of appearance, strength, speed and maneuverability, and not exaggerated in terms of size eith Yet the paleobiologist has given this Meg 1 OUT OF 10 in terms of scientific accuracy. So eh, no I don't buy your little assessment sorry. The main issue of Hans is the survival. Actually he's quite okay with the shark. Meghan Balk too. Not seen the movie yet but I just want to see a majestic meg on the big screen. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 12, 2018 20:03:47 GMT 5
Grey:
You won't be dissapointed in seeing the Megalodon. But maybe more so in the plot.
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 14, 2018 7:39:39 GMT 5
Saw the movie today. Sharks look realistic in terms of appearance, strength, speed and maneuverability, and not exaggerated in terms of size either. However, this movie portray them as monsters hellbent on taking revenge which is unlikely. I find the movie disappointing on the whole; it feature some excellent action sequences but it had so much potential to offer JAWS-like suspense and horror; the director blew it unfortunately. Some experts give little thought to the psychological effect of a huge macropredator on other lifeforms. Megalodon, in the light of its biomechanics, is not only incredibly strong but it is expected to chase other beings from their kills, and it would be rare for any species to hold its ground. Livyatan Melvillei was large and powerful enough to put up a fight but it wasn't widespread and it couldn't dethrone Megalodon even in Peru. I do not think that a pod of Killer Whales would risk a confrontation with an adult Megalodon because they are smart enough to figure out that this effort might not be worth the cost. My response in Quora: www.quora.com/Who-would-win-a-Megalodon-shark-or-a-Killer-Whale-PodIMHO, climatic shifts coupled with major extinction event in the Pliocene set the course for extinction of Megalodon. With increasingly dwindling prey options, Megalodons might have turned on each other (adults eating the smaller ones). Hot damn. No wonder it had believable strength, speed, etc. venturebeat.com/2018/08/13/intel-ai-and-2500-xeons-bring-the-meg-mega-shark-to-the-big-screen/Anyways bull sperm whales are considered too ferocious and aggressive for prey, as it states on the wikipedia page of killer whales. Female sperms are 2-3x less massive and 50% less lengthier I believe. I can only imagine a whale killing shark of similar mass fighting a pod. Anyways average transient orca pod is 3-4 individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 26, 2018 22:55:59 GMT 5
Average wise, it seem my predictions are now more accurate than sam1's since I said 300-600 million worldwide which averages to 450 million, and right now it is at 408 million. Sam1 predicted 300 million worldwide.
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Sept 1, 2018 22:53:24 GMT 5
Average wise, it seem my predictions are now more accurate than sam1's since I said 300-600 million worldwide which averages to 450 million, and right now it is at 408 million. Sam1 predicted 300 million worldwide. Eh I wouldn't brag about it since I dared to make an exact guess and you just used a huge ballpark instead. If I said between 100 and 900 million, the average would be the same. So yeah, not exactly a prophecy. Oh and you conveniently miss out that I also gave the exact USA gross guess which will turn out pretty close. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Sept 2, 2018 1:09:55 GMT 5
I wouldn't brag about it either, even though you seem to be thinking I am. XD. A 300 million vs a 800 million dollar range are two magnitudes worth of guesses. And hey if you want to thoughtlessly be an agressive and snarky poster, two can play that game,  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 2, 2018 2:12:29 GMT 5
As a general rule, I’d say if a range of estimates is as high as the lower end of that range, that’s not a very meaningful estimate to begin with. If I had a fragmentary fossil and got two plausible size estimates, one 15 m and one 30 m (and those weren’t just two possible outliers among many more constrained figures), then I would not consider the prediction based on that fragment statistically meaningful, even taking the mean of both.
What’s with that weird fixation with the box office of this random monster-movie though?
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Sept 2, 2018 2:33:08 GMT 5
I wouldn't brag about it either, even though you seem to be thinking I am. XD. A 300 million vs a 800 million dollar range are two magnitudes worth of guesses. And hey if you want to thoughtlessly be an agressive and snarky poster, two can play that game, That made little sense. And since you seem to be thinking I was somehow thoughtlessly snarky and aggressive, the irony is on you. Whatever. Enjoy your little bad monster movie fixation. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 2, 2018 4:24:42 GMT 5
Guys, seriously!
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Sept 2, 2018 5:47:58 GMT 5
Ah sorry. I guess the correct word is “cocky”. Interesting that you cannot comprehend the major difference in accuracy of a 300 million margin vs 800 million million margin.
|
|
