"The original Jurassic World had a perfectly reasonable, for a summer blockbuster, budget of $150 million. However, as the movie brought in more than $1.6 billion, the return on investment was still ridiculously high. It would seem that Universal is hoping that an increase in the budget will have an equivalent, or better, impact on the box office. The figure comes from a perfectly legit source too. The movie's director JA Bayona, gave a recent interview to Spanish-language magazine El Pais Seminal which has been translated by Scified. While it's possible something was lost in translation, even in another language, numbers are usually pretty straightforward."

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1557579/jurassic-world-2-is-apparently-going-to-have-an-absolutely-insane-budget

This biggest RED FLAG EVER! Do they really not know what they are setting themselves in for?

The previous one wasn't very good. Hope this will be better.

I think sequel logic is always bigger = better.

Let's hope is also not insanely bad again.

I'm curious about what can be considered "an absolutely insane budget". If they are going for 300-600 millions, that is borderline reasonable, in the sense that: 1) The first movie set a decent precedent, so now it's a safe time to increase the budget, and 2)If it loses money, they won't burn all the profits from the first one.

If it is above that, then they should be concerned about how they spend their money.

Honestly I felt a huge part of JW sales was due to the 14 year gap where so many were dying for a new dinosaur flick. Not sure if they can repeat the same success unless they provide a much better story.

But bigger budget = bigger pay for Chris Pratt...good for him :)

Yeah, Jurassic Park hasnt been great since after the first one, so I doubt this will be any good.

well I don't see where is the problem, if they want to spend 260M on a sequel that made 1.6B they won't have a loss even if nobody saw the sequel. And, since the reviews were so harsh on the movie, there's plenty of space for improvement

It was a success, so I think it was necessary. I was quite disappointed at the CGI used in the film. The parts of the original Jurassic Park that used robots and practical effects looked way better and that's not great when we are talking about movies that are more than 20 years apart. Also, JP had the best CG and practical effects in the world when it launched, this makes it even worse to think that JW had only "ok" CGI.

I did enjoy the film, it's way better than JP3, even if not on the same level than the first 2 films. It's a reasonable future for the dinosaur version of Universal Studios theme park that they always proposed. It's a bit ridiculous that people still seem to think that a dinosaur park is a good idea after everyone dying on JP1, a T. rex running wild on San Diego on LW, incidents on JP3, but well, the idea of the film was always to show greedy people trying to tame nature and failing. Don't know how they will deal with the the disaster on JW.

It's a fun film, fresh cast, a bit too much on the nostalgic side. The final fight scene was too much over the top, it was to much to have a T. rex, with a velociraptor on his back fighting a crazy hybrid dino that ends up becoming dinner for a mosasaur. I also did not bought the idea of using raptors as weapons, but at least people still use dogs in some mission, so they could be just a mean version of them.

The article says 260 million. Which isn't really insane at all for a blockbuster in this day and age.