Talk:Jurassic World Dominion

"Dimetrodon, a synapsid that existed before the dinosaurs, also appears in the film. The creature had made appearances through various franchise merchandise over the years, while Dominion marks its film debut."

There were a cluster of Dimetrodon in Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959). WHPratt (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Plot: "The explorers eventually come upon a subterranean ocean. They construct a raft to cross it, but not before narrowly escaping a family of dimetrodons."

Production: "The giant Dimetrodon depicted at the center of the Earth action sequence were actually rhinoceros iguanas with large, glued-on make-up appliances added to their backs."

Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959 film) WHPratt (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Few editors have been changing box office numbers on that movie to vastly different numbers. I don't like where this is going. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

ok 66.206.60.235 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

So basically, looks like Dominion got 999.7 million dollars, and if it true, then it could be the third film to reach a billion dollar mark during the pandemic. Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

No, the runtime 146 minutes had nothing to do with the epic film, but it had multiple locations, and places that the characters were involved. Should I added it, or it does not? Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

We should follow WP:FILMLEAD, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." If "epic" is not used by most reliable sources, then we should not have that in the first sentence. I don't really think "epic" is commonly used in the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

BattleshipMan corrected me on removing capitals from dinosaur genuses; that was fine, and appreciated. What wasn't appreciated was their mindless revert of a painstaking plot copyedit (bringing it under 700 words, per WP:FILMPLOT) for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NeoBatfreak, I'm done with your requested copyedit; sorry. Mini apolis 01:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Please note that WP:UGC user generated content such as from user voted web polls are not a reliable source and are not normally included in Wikipedia articles (with a few rare exceptions).

Audience scores should not have been added to the article[1] without any discussion. This should be removed unless and until it is shown by reliable sources that there is something particularly noteworthy about the audience scores in this case to justify making an exception to the rule. -- 109.77.205.15 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed, removed. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I do not agree with the past discussion regarding of which actors would be put on the lead part of the article, which I was (削除) not (削除ここまで) involved in. I think anyone who appeared in the previous Jurassic World films that are not in the poster billing board and any one who are such importance (like Campbell Scott's character Dodgson, who is the main antagonist in that movie) should be on the lead part of the article. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Um, you literally were? I guess it works, depends if I like it or not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, wrong section I looked at. Well, I wasn't sure about it at the time. I think maybe we should only put up actors who appeared in the previous Jurassic World films, as well as the one who played the main antagonist on it, if you know what I mean. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we should look at these things from a real-world perspective. If he isn't credited in the billing block, there are reasons for that which are beyond our control (i.e. contracts, star power, etc.) We shouldn't be arbitrarily deciding to give someone the top-billing credit "they deserve" — the next thing we know, editors will be demanding that Batman (1989 film) put Michael Keaton in his "rightful" place in the lead and infobox, and so forth. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Preemptively posting here that the budget has increased thanks to the latest UK Gov tax release. I added the numbers in that document to the numbers Caroline Reid provided in previous tax releases. This falls under WP:CALC. poketape (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Low-importance American cinema articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class science fiction articles
• Low-importance science fiction articles
• WikiProject Science Fiction articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report