Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 3018371" data-attributes="member: 707">I'm not sure I'd call it a flawed perspective, so much as a pragmatic, industry-insider perspective.  Studios are risking huge amounts of money on movies these days.  If you risk 260 million dollars of venture capital, and only get back 6% on your investment, that's a failure.  In the same time you could have done something else that earned you far, far more.  When you're risking that kind of money, a slight profit simply does not balance out the potential catastrophe.I'm not an expert, but I believe, again, that this is mistaken.  To be successful a movie's profit must justify the amount of risk and opportunity cost invested in the film.This is true.  And Batman Begins' numbers weren't astronomical, but we'll be getting a sequel there, too.  But these movies cost significantly less than Superman Returns to make.  That means the studio isn't risking as much potential loss, and aren't tying up as large a chunk of their working capital on a single project.Not me.  I want to see a legendary Superman villain brought to life.  Though for me, I would hope he chose one of the grander, more epic villains, such as Brainiac, Darkseid, or Doomsday.Perhaps.  But I doubt anyone but hard-core Batman fans knew the name Ra'as Al-Ghul before Batman Begins either.  A good writer/director can take a little-known villain and create something memorable with the source material.  I don't think it'd be hard to create a compelling Brainiac.</blockquote>

Verification