Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Deltron_Zed t1_iuw8ni9 wrote

I remember when it was Waterworld.

Sea theme must be popular.

56

jrrfolkien OP t1_iuw9itr wrote

I could sea how seafaring movies would tend to cost more than others

39

Deltron_Zed t1_iuwhdtb wrote

For sure there has to be some greater expense in it, right?

2

NetDork t1_iuygpo9 wrote

Because a boat is a hole in the water that you throw money into.

1

thune123 t1_iuy9zvp wrote

Titanic taking its place 2 years later checks out.

5

MisterRay24 t1_iuw7l3x wrote

Wow, I love that movie

14

AnotherJasonOnReddit t1_iuwvff8 wrote

2011's On Stranger Tides?

I think the very nicest things I can say about it is that it's better than the next one (2017), and not as long as the previous one (2007).

26

MisterRay24 t1_iux2i96 wrote

I love the 5th too, the bank stealing is the best opening to a Pirates movie yet and Barbosa did his best acting in the series in the 5th

14

dinoroo t1_iuxp3ni wrote

It was pretty epic and it just kept going and going.

2

Pseudonymico t1_iv58lmr wrote

The book is very, very different and unrelated to the movie franchise outside of some of its plot elements (iirc Disney licensed it way back when they made the original Pirates of the Caribbean film due to the fact that they were making a pirates-with-magic movie), but very good.

1

Amehvafan t1_iuw8iuu wrote

Definitely the best of the Pirates.
Maybe even the best movie ever made.

Why am I being downvoted? Were people offended or did they think I was serious?

−12

Malena_my_quuen t1_iv01ahx wrote

While it doesn't showing on the wiki page, I'm pretty sure on stranger tides grossed the least out of all the movies in the series. I think it's a decent movie, but it should have come out sooner.

1

Cross33 t1_iv2lizr wrote

If it's the most expensive film ever made unadjusted for inflation, wouldn't that make it by default the most expensive adjusted for inflation? Well i guess unless there's serious deflation?

1

BeanpoleAhead t1_ivjj7i5 wrote

Not necessarily, an older movie could have been more expensive when adjusted for inflation even with a lower amount spent because a single dollar is worth less over time.

Just as an example, if a movie costed $1010 to make, and that was the most ever spent on a movie, adjusting for inflation a movie made 20 years prior that costed $1000 would be more expensive.

1

Cross33 t1_ivjnmja wrote

Sorry i know the wording is confusing but i think you flipped the order of operations i was talking about. I'm talking about if the movie made 20 years earlier cost 1010 to make, and the new movie cost 1000 to make. Inflation wouldn't matter in that case

1

BeanpoleAhead t1_ivjp5ux wrote

Not in that case, but you were just asking if the most expensive film without adjusting for inflation would be the most expensive even when adjusting for it, which doesn't always have to be true.

1

Cross33 t1_ivjpxqc wrote

I think it does though? Because if the unadjusted cost is greater then the adjusted cost will always be greater with inflation

1

BeanpoleAhead t1_ivjq9p1 wrote

No, it won't, because inflation rises over time. A hundred bucks a hundred years ago was worth more than 500 today, and that 500 is only worth 500. Even if the unadjusted cost is lower, depending on how far back it was made it could still cost more when adjusted for inflation.

1

Cross33 t1_ivjrbab wrote

I think we're saying the same thing in a disagreeing way. I literally agree with everything you just said except for the word no.

1

BeanpoleAhead t1_ivjrlby wrote

Are we? You're saying if the unadjusted cost is greater, the adjusted cost will always also be greater, which is false. That's what I'm arguing against.

1

Cross33 t1_ivjxxrn wrote

How is that false? You literally said yourself 500 dollars a hundred years ago is worth more today?

1

BeanpoleAhead t1_ivjyae3 wrote

"A hundred bucks a hundred years ago was worth more than 500 today, and that 500 is only worth 500."

That's not what I said. I said a hundred dollars is worth more than 500 today, but 500 today is only worth 500. So even though the cost before adjusting for inflation is lower for the hundred, after adjustment the price is higher. So what you originally were claiming is false.

1

Cross33 t1_ivk2ant wrote

Is it though? Cuz what I originally claimed aligns with literally everything you just said. I honestly think you're fucking with me at this point and I'm done with this conversation.

1

BeanpoleAhead t1_ivk76s7 wrote

You claimed the exact opposite of what I'm saying, so you're either misunderstanding me or misunderstanding what you originally stated. It could very well be my fault if I'm not wording things in an easy way to understand.

1