It has always been my opinion that a film earns exactly what it deserves.

Does this mean I in any way think the all time gross top 10 is the all time best film top 10? Not a chance.

It simply means that films are in fact a business when it comes down to it, they make money based on how they appeal to the audience at the time. No more, no less.

Frankly, its about as valuable a barometer as to how "good" a film is as the Oscars are, only with this list, you know how wide the appeal actually was.

I ask that to myself whenever I question the domestic list and the top spots. What exactly would be a suitable film/films to replace what we currently have, that would better represent our society, our tastes, and cinema in general. It's a difficult question to answer.

Whenever people try to decide what belongs in the top 10 of all time money makers, I always bring this up

It just means your taste vs the public differs so why even argue
Personally Ill throw Cabin Boy and Kungpow in the top 12 list along with entire Police Academy series of all time money makers

I always get mad looking at today's Top 10. About half of the films are really, really underaverage.

While I agree with that, its no so much what the film deserves, but I think its how its represented, marketing wise. I mean if your marketed as an independant film, most of the time much better than most movies out in the year, chances are you wont earn more than 10 million. Recent examples include Kiss Kiss, I heart Huckabees, Thank you for Smoking. I dont think its a matter of what a film deserves, I find it actually to be quite explainable, why a film like Shrek will do so amazing, when the Incredibles was that much better to families and people alike, and grosses 160 million less. It all comes down to release schedule, marketing and the market itself.

If you're talking about "much better" movies, then The Iron Giant deserved ten times its gross. The public votes with its money, end of story; we're just angry film-fan apologists that rationalize away from the truth.

No it doesn't bother me because I don't view a movie's gross as a sign of quality any more than I think Clive Cussler or Dean Koontz are great writers just because they sell a lot of books.

Thats my point, its all a matter of selling business, people spend honestly hours aday thinking when a movie will do its best potential.

I dont think any of the LOTR would made over 250 million if they were released in the summer for instance. Its a matter of being in the right place at the right time, and yes bad sequels usally have the biggest advantages.

Sometimes I love to just come back here when Im really bored to laugh out loud.