Jungle Cruise - The Movie - Page 4

CoasterMatt · 03-10-2011, 05:34 PM

Fvck it all, if it doesn't have airtime, TAER IT DOWN!!

Sorry if nobody else gets the joke, I've been chatting with some long lost rrc'ers & there's a lot of fumes in here still...

Kevy Baby · 03-10-2011, 06:41 PM

WHOOSH

The sound of that going right over my head.

Stan4dSteph · 03-11-2011, 12:21 PM

I remember when everyone thought the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was going to suck.

Snowflake · 03-11-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

I remember when everyone thought the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was going to suck.

It did.

Cadaverous Pallor · 03-11-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

I remember when everyone thought the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was going to suck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake

It did.

It did eventually. It was good and successful and therefore they had to make sucky sequels. Why do they have to make (most) everything suck??? Sigh.

Alex, I think this is where you and I have the largest distance between us. I am infatuated with living in nostalgia. My iPod's playlist hasn't changed much in the last 4 years either, but only because I can't let the old things go.

Alex · 03-11-2011, 03:09 PM

Because when you are faced with the question "Do I stick to a sense of artistic integrity and just walk away or do I make millions of dollars, put food on the table for hundreds or thousands of people, entertain 100,000s of people even if it does suck and maybe even not actually suck" it really isn't that hard of a decision.

Moonliner · 03-11-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Because when you are faced with the question "Do I stick to a sense of artistic integrity and just walk away or do I make millions of dollars, put food on the table for hundreds or thousands of people, entertain 100,000s of people even if it does suck and maybe even not actually suck" it really isn't that hard of a decision.

I guess making sequels that sucked less was not an option? Good movies would have made more money, put more food on the table, entertained more people and cured cancer.

(ok, maybe not that last one)

Alex · 03-11-2011, 06:52 PM

Do you think they were trying to make bad movies (and I don't necessarily agree they were bad, though they weren't as good as the first one)?

Stan4dSteph · 03-11-2011, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake

It did.

Well to a lot of people it didn't. It made craploads of cash, and still does. So, I'm not going to just dismiss something as being a POS until it's actually done.

RStar · 03-11-2011, 08:33 PM

Interestingly, the two sequels made nearly twice as much money as the first one did. The second movie made a over billion dollars worldwide ($1,066,179,725), and the third just under ($960,996,492). The first made only ($654,264,015). I think that bit of info may nudge it out of the "crappy" category. Of course, what people choose to spend their money on and what is a good work of art may not always agree. And I have to admit that I like all of the POTC films, including the sequels. I can say the same about the Shrek franchise, but not many others.

03-10-2011, 05:34 PM	#31
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	Fvck it all, if it doesn't have airtime, TAER IT DOWN!! Sorry if nobody else gets the joke, I've been chatting with some long lost rrc'ers & there's a lot of fumes in here still... __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

03-10-2011, 06:41 PM	#32
Kevy Baby Chowder Head Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Yes Posts: 18,500	WHOOSH The sound of that going right over my head. __________________ The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot verify their validity. - Abraham Lincoln
	Submit to Quotes

03-11-2011, 12:21 PM	#33
Stan4dSteph Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,156	I remember when everyone thought the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was going to suck.
	Submit to Quotes

03-11-2011, 03:09 PM	#36
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Because when you are faced with the question "Do I stick to a sense of artistic integrity and just walk away or do I make millions of dollars, put food on the table for hundreds or thousands of people, entertain 100,000s of people even if it does suck and maybe even not actually suck" it really isn't that hard of a decision.
	Submit to Quotes

03-11-2011, 06:52 PM	#38
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Do you think they were trying to make bad movies (and I don't necessarily agree they were bad, though they weren't as good as the first one)?
	Submit to Quotes

03-11-2011, 08:33 PM	#40
RStar Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Me & Manyard hangin out! Posts: 5,433	Interestingly, the two sequels made nearly twice as much money as the first one did. The second movie made a over billion dollars worldwide ($1,066,179,725), and the third just under ($960,996,492). The first made only ($654,264,015). I think that bit of info may nudge it out of the "crappy" category. Of course, what people choose to spend their money on and what is a good work of art may not always agree. And I have to admit that I like all of the POTC films, including the sequels. I can say the same about the Shrek franchise, but not many others. __________________ Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup! www.StarTownGifts.com
	Submit to Quotes