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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.