So clearly, almost everyone whose seen Jurassic World thinks that it's a lot better than The Room, except you, I guess.

Except for the hundreds of people that gave it 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's? So your argument is more people gave it 8's, 9's and 10's, therefore it's clearly a good movie? I can say this about every movie that's rated highly, even if you dislike it. I can blow off every critic of every movie because it has a 7 on IMDB. MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. THANK YOU SENSE MAKING SENSAI.

It means nothing -- it's meaningless. The fact that you think this means anything is baffling and frankly good indication that you're dumb as shit.

Also, there are plenty of professional reviewers that hated Jurassic World. This still means nothing, since movies are subjective, a point you can't seem to grasp. Aggregate scores don't change whether or not a particular person likes a movie, or how that movie will be regarded in the future. Plenty of acclaimed movies from the past are regarded as pieces of trash now.

I mean, the Avengers had just as much, if not more, corny dialogue, pretty much every character was completely one dimensional, and I feel that both movies had similar pacing and cohesiveness.

Avengers didn't have gaping plot holes, and I didn't find myself digging my head into my hands every five seconds questioning the characters motives. Characters also have motivations outside of "OMG KILL MUTANT DINOSAUR" and there is development without dialogue. There is no such thing as learning about a character in Jurassic World without exposition. Ron Howard's daughter literally SAYS HER NAME TO HERSELF ALONE IN THE ELEVATOR SO THE AUDIENCE KNOWS WHO SHE IS.

ALL of the movies I listed have pieces of character development that happen with NO WORDS at all. Jurassic World is exposition central and will -- mark my words -- be regarded as an exceptionally terrible script in the future. People will laugh at how fucking horrible some of this shit is, just like we laugh at the prequels.