2. Avarice
Being a Redskins fan, it was great to see something I thought I'd never see, which was Dan Snyder, the owner, backing off. Dan Snyder's solution to every problem the team faced was to throw money at big players looking for big contracts in hopes that it would buy wins. It didn't work. Fans were disappointed and furious until recently, when Snyder decided to let go of handling football operations. The past year was a great one for fans as we had a winning season along with an NFC East Championship. Likewise in the film industry, throwing money at a project isn't the same as reworking a script or reshooting a film. Money does not solve problems, in fact they create them. Notorious B.I.G. wasn't lying. While having a decent sized budget ensures basic needs are met, an excess of money usually means there's more temptation to spend it all on a cool explosion or a CGI unicorn to attract viewers. Producers will throw money in hopes of solving a problem that may not necessarily require money at all. Most films need reworking at the basic level of storytelling and money is a great motivator, but it can't come up with a satisfying character arc. Money tends to encourage laziness or sloth; money tempts the filmmaker to cover up plot holes or ill advised conventions with an easy solution. Avarice is a sin in film because when money is thrown, producers expect to see huge profits, but it ends up doing the opposite. It robs the audience of a cleverly crafted action sequence or montage, which in turn robs the producers. Exhibit A: Sam Raimi was known for his Evil Dead trilogy and producers loved him because he made a successful franchise with small budgets. They brought him on to do Spiderman because if he could do great things with little money, imagine what he could do with a lot. It worked out great for the first two Spiderman films, but the third one was out of the loop compared to the others. It was bloated and overstuffed with a huge monster Sandman, an unconvincing Topher Grace as Venom, and an angry, bad-turned-good guy in Harry Osborn. The first Spiderman had a budget of $139 million dollars and brought in over $800 million dollars worldwide. The second was amped up with a budget of $200 million dollars and brought over $700 million. The third was given $258 million dollars to deal with and raked in nearly $900 million dollars. Sounds like a win, win, win, but the third may have lost many fans' trust in the studio's handling of their beloved webhead. The Amazing Spiderman, a completely new reboot featuring a new director and cast, nearly spent as much as Spiderman 3 did at $230 million dollars, but brought in the least of the Spiderman films. Going back to the football analogy, big players demanded big contracts because they deserved it, but as soon as they get it, many players lose the fire and passion they once played with because their bank accounts are hefty and their futures are secure. They don't see the need to entertain the fans with exciting play anymore. Sound familiar?