Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BeanpoleAhead t1_ivjj7i5 wrote

Reply to comment by Cross33 in TIL that the most expensive film ever made (both adjusted and unadjusted for inflation) is Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides by jrrfolkien

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