‘Jurassic World’ Chomps on Record $182 Million Opening Weekend

Jurassic World
Courtesy of Universal

Jurassic World” stomped all over the competition Friday at the box office, gobbling up $83 million on its way to making well upwards of $180 million in its opening weekend, according to Saturday estimates.

If the Chris Pratt monsterpalooza remains on track for the three-day period, it will demolish the previous high for a June release (“Man of Steel” reeled in $116.6 million in its 2013 opening weekend. It’s likely to land in the third-largest opening weekend ever spot behind “The Avengers” ($207 million) and “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” ($191 million).

The reboot stars Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard running the theme park first dreamed up in “Jurassic Park” in 1993. The park’s latest attraction, genetically engineered Indominus rex, proves problematic for park visitors and employees alike.

Overseas, “Jurassic World” has been doing huge numbers since bowing on Wednesday in some markets. Coupled with the huge success of “Furious 7” earlier this year, Universal has already topped $2 billion in global receipts, outpacing 20th Century Fox’s previous record for exceeding that sum.

Part of “Jurassic World’s” large haul is the $18.5 million generated by Thursday night showings. The “Jurassic World” previews topped “Furious 7″ ($15.8 million) as the biggest latenight showing ever for Universal. The dino tale might even oust “Furious 7” as Universal’s highest-grossing film.

Colin Trevorrow directed “Jurassic World” on a $150 million budget. The film is screening at 13,551 theaters worldwide, making it the widest Universal release ever.

The adventure pic had no trouble establishing itself as the dominant predator over other recent releases. Melissa McCarthy’s “Spy” has taken a backseat to the dinosaurs after opening to $32 million last weekend. The R-rated comedy still raked in nearly $5 million Friday night, on track for a cume of $56 million by weekend’s end.

Disaster movie “San Andreas” has also been trounced, pulling in $3 million Friday for a healthy $112 million since its release.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 17

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Appreciating the time and energy you put into your website and detailed information you present.
    It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that
    isn’t the same unwanted rehashed material. Great read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  2. The individual well being is dependent on inner and
    exterior components. Egg cases (oothecae) and cast skins – Cockroaches shed their skin 5 to 8
    times as they mature. I advocate that at least one particular goes in your
    cabinets, one particular in your rest room, and a single on your floor.

  3. This damages tthe bug’s exoskeleton, making it the most effective of natural
    pesticides. Using your favorite sanitizer
    of choice (bleach or more eco-friendly options) thorouyghly sanitize your kitchen, paying special attention to corners, crevices,
    and the inside of appliances. ; Division of Environmental Hazardds and Health Effects, Centers for Dizease Control and Prevention, Natioinal Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, GA, USA;

  4. Muszę przyznać, że po zapoznaniu się z tymi wszystkimi przygodami nie
    zdecydowałbym się na ubezpieczenie w Warcie.

  5. Tom says:

    Can we end it once and for all how people are not going to the movies and how dire the movie industry is???

  6. shaniqua says:

    JUNE 13, 2015 | 07:49AM PT ‘Jurassic World’ Chomps on Record $182 Million Opening Weekend’

    Time traveling again.

  7. jessewojdylo says:

    Wow! I have heard mixed reviews. A few of my friends have loved it while others thought it was overdone. That is a huge weekend opening though.

  8. Jon says:

    Jurassic World is not a reboot – it is a sequel. A reboot is a movie that re-imagines an origin story, ignoring the previous incarnation. This is NOT a reboot. Jurassic World acknowledges the events of Jurassic Park, therefore it is a sequel.

    • Cordelia says:

      Yes, Jon, you are totally right–this article is misusing the word “reboot.” Jurassic World is indeed a SEQUEL, NOT a reboot. The continuous misuse of the word “reboot” when “sequel” is actually correct is appearing so frequently these days that both words are in danger of being muddled together and losing their distinct, individual meanings. A “sequel” is, quite literally, “that which follows;” it is a film that follows an earlier film continuously, within the same universe, and recalling the previous film’s events and history, like “Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back,” “Back to the Future II,” or “Jurassic World.” A “reboot,” however, begins afresh from the beginning, figuratively “shutting down” the continuity of the previous film or film series, and “restarting” it up again, as one would with a computer–hence the term “reboot.” A reboot begins afresh with a new continuity that does not recall or acknowledge the events and history of the previous film or film series, but rather portrays perhaps similar characters and similar events, albeit in an otherwise unrelated or possibly alternate universe, like the recent “Star Trek” films, or the upcoming all-female “Ghostbusters” movie. The continuous, haphazard over-use of the word “reboot,” especially when it appears in legitimate publications like “Variety,” is not only disappointing and annoyingly inaccurate, it is also putting both words at risk. “Reboot” is at risk of losing its meaning, and “sequel” is, appropriately enough, threatened with extinction itself–in real jeopardy of endangerment, or, put another way, of “going the way of the dinosaurs…”

      • Cordelia says:

        @Bella–pardon me, I thought this was a forum for intelligent discussion. If you have such a problem with what I wrote, then simply don’t read it. There is no need to be a troll about it.

      • Bella says:

        Take your essay someplace else

    • jhs39 says:

      It’s referred to as a reboot because of the length of time that has passed between the third Jurassic Park movie and this one and the fact that this movie is considered the first in a new series.

      • Cordelia says:

        I don’t think the amount of time between films has anything to do with whether or not a film is classifiable a “reboot” or a “sequel.” For example, everyone knows Star Wars Episodes I through III as “prequels,” and thus, the upcoming film as a “sequel,” yet it has been decades between Star Wars Episode VI and the upcoming Episode VII, and Episode VII is also considered the “first film in a new series.” Likewise, “Superman Returns” was, as I understand it, intended to be a sequel of the 1978 Christopher Reeve “Superman” movie, albeit perhaps a non-cannon one, even though it was released almost 30 years after the earlier film. Finally, the Toby Maguire “Spiderman” series ended in 2007 with the second SEQUEL, “Spiderman 3,” and yet, “The Amazing Spiderman”–a true REBOOT–came out only 5 years later, in 2012. As you can see, the difference between the words has nothing to do with length of time between films, and is really just contingent on whether the new film builds upon the continuity of its predecessor, or whether it simply ignores it.

      • Mike says:

        Thr prequels had that much time between them and the originals and no one refers to them as reboots.

      • James says:

        The definition of a reboot means ignoring all the past movies like amazing Spider-Man. This is a sequel!!!!

      • Dina says:

        No it’s a sequel.

More Film News from Variety