Comments
SEND_PUNS_PLZ t1_iuw8awa wrote
Technically, that makes it the most pirated movie ever as well
jrrfolkien OP t1_iuw8f6a wrote
Username fits
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?
Deltron_Zed t1_iuw8ni9 wrote
I remember when it was Waterworld.
Sea theme must be popular.
jrrfolkien OP t1_iuw9itr wrote
I could sea how seafaring movies would tend to cost more than others
UWontAgreeWithMe t1_iuwax7r wrote
Floating money pits
hardFraughtBattle t1_iuwgd3x wrote
The book on which it was (loosely) based is great too. On Stranger Tides, by Tim Powers
[deleted] t1_iuwgm97 wrote
[deleted]
Deltron_Zed t1_iuwhdtb wrote
For sure there has to be some greater expense in it, right?
[deleted] t1_iuwi5to wrote
[removed]
BaconReceptacle t1_iuwlxvt wrote
I think the movie John Carter is the movie with the greatest loss.
Shawn3997 t1_iuwmsj7 wrote
Great book.
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).
Tulivu t1_iux12x9 wrote
That would be JoJo Rabbit for me.
MisterRay24 t1_iux2635 wrote
I can't even tell if you forgot this
/s
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
JasonStrode t1_iux3rz9 wrote
Charge by the gallon, they do.
CA_Orange t1_iux4azl wrote
derSafran t1_iux77u9 wrote
*coast more
dinoroo t1_iuxp3ni wrote
It was pretty epic and it just kept going and going.
qpwoeor1235 t1_iuxxsxm wrote
And your usernames reminds me of bilbo gaggins
papadjeef t1_iuy2ge5 wrote
by the Galleon even
JasonStrode t1_iuy3zkb wrote
Eight Pinta's in a Galleon, right?
thune123 t1_iuy9zvp wrote
Titanic taking its place 2 years later checks out.
NetDork t1_iuygpo9 wrote
Because a boat is a hole in the water that you throw money into.
timberwolf0122 t1_iuyndzz wrote
Why, what a big dyslexic username checks out you have
Potatoswatter t1_iuz0w2e wrote
* otters
[deleted] t1_iuz1v16 wrote
[deleted]
69_420_bonerjamz t1_iuzoedi wrote
Disney just dominating the top 20
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.
Hello-There-GKenobi t1_iv0gvsh wrote
I don’t know why either. It was a fantastic movie.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Cross33 t1_ivjxxrn wrote
How is that false? You literally said yourself 500 dollars a hundred years ago is worth more today?
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.
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.
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.
MisterRay24 t1_iuw7l3x wrote
Wow, I love that movie