Jungle Cruise - The Movie

[Stan4dSteph]

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]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by RStar

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.

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.