PotC is my 'background noise' when I am doing stuff around the house but don't want to get sucked in to the TV. Sure, I can watch CotBP over and over again but I can also just have it on in the background.

No, I have no idea what they were trying to do, I only know the end result. I read your comment to say they were trying to make a bad movie.

No, it was saying that the choice presented doesn't really argue against the risk of making a bad movie considering the non-artistic benefits that accrue regardless of whether you end up making a bad movie or not.

In fact, I'd say since I assume most biz people acknowledge that most sequels suck, but that they exist precisely because they make more money than their predecessors regardless of same, that - yes - most people making sequels, though they make not intend to make a bad movie, know they are in fact making a bad movie.

Do sequels suck at a rate significantly higher than non-sequels? Most movies suck.

I know it is the kind of quantification that only interests me but I just looked at the top 100 grossing films of 2010 and compared the Top Critic RottenTomatoes rating for sequels and remakes as compared to non-sequels/remakes.

There were 75 movies in the top 100 that weren't a sequel or remake. The average rating was 47.3%.

There were 25 sequels and remakes in the top 100. The average rating was 48.2%.

So, at least for 2010, if you had the choice of making a mainstream sequel or making a mainstream not-sequel it looks like your chances of making crap were about the same (the standard deviation in the two groups was about the same as well). Both groups contained a 100% rating (Toy Story 3 and The Social Network). And your chance for making metric buttloads of money at the box office were much higher with the sequels.

And just in case one wonder if the remakes were keeping the average up, 19 of the 25 were pure sequels and their average rating was even higher: 49.8%.

McDonald's makes billions more on their sh*tty hamburgers than somewhere like Slater's 50/50 can ever hope to make. That makes McDonald's burgers more marketable, not better.

Yes, it's not a great analogy as there's the whole cost thing. But I still like it as a extreme (if not representative) example that hints that "commercial success" is not equivalent to "quality". And definitely not equivalent to, "Long term benefit to culture."

That said, the only issue there should be with the preference towards commercially successful but artistically bland/safe movies is if that preference precludes the existence of more ambitious and artistically "quality" films. I think it's a difficult argument to make that it does. It may seem so since studios make far more crappy mindless commercial flicks than thoughtful, risky, interesting flicks. But while the percentages may favor the popcorn, there's a strong argument to make that the popcorn flicks subsidize many more quality movies that would never get made if the studios weren't making stupid money on Pirates.

Sequels are a lower-risk investment, that's the reason so many of them get made.

I think that's the opinion of most critics.

I think it's a great analogy for me, due to the fact that my first job was there (in 1976!) and came to hate their food. I always think to myself "why do people go there?" I think part of it is advertising, a good portion of which is aimed at kids with Happy Meal toys. The same can be said about movies, too. How many times have you watched a movie because the trailer looked good, only to find the movie sucked?

But isn't the problem with art the fact that what is pleasing or enjoyable to one persons' eye, may not be to someone elses? I've struggled with that concept and I've tried to not push their opinions into my mold (my unfortunate use of a joke about music once notwithstanding).

That is true, and I'm sure it may even go back further than that. If the studio lost a lot of money on a previously risky project, a sequel my get a green light much more easily. There may be a lot more behind the "why" of making a sequel as well, and it's success. Including which artists say "yes" to the project.

And then there are the remakes. After mindless trivil like the 1970's and 80's TV shows (Dukes of Hazard comes to mind), do we really need movies like the Smurfs? To answer that question, one would need to answer this one question: why do you go to the movies?

But it boils down to the fact that I think GD is right, if the high grossing money makers weren't made, some of the better films might not get made.