<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Spidey&#039;s expensive secret</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/</link>
	<description>The News Blog of Comics Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:13:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: michael</title>
		<link>http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/#comment-15746</link>
		<dc:creator>michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/#comment-15746</guid>
		<description>wow! half a bill??!!??  I think that&#039;s a bit in excess Heidi, I figured it would be close to maybe 400mill, but I seriously doubt any studio now would have spent 1/2 billion on a movie, which is the 3rd in a series.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wow! half a bill??!!??  I think that&#8217;s a bit in excess Heidi, I figured it would be close to maybe 400mill, but I seriously doubt any studio now would have spent 1/2 billion on a movie, which is the 3rd in a series.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: markus</title>
		<link>http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/#comment-15745</link>
		<dc:creator>markus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/#comment-15745</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;No wonder everyone is looking at the lean, and very, very profitable 300 as the future of Hollywood:&lt;/i&gt;
It would be more accurate to say it&#039;s one, not particularly bright commentary. Come to think of, to write that column in that venue, the commenter probably isn&#039;t that smart either. Your linking ... well ....
See*, return on investment isn&#039;t everything. Blockbusters generate exposure and in the case of SM3, PotC3 and Shrek3 it&#039;s a fairly safe bet that each will net 200-300 million. It really doesn&#039;t matter if that&#039;s a poor return on investment (it actually isn&#039;t, but nevermind that, the guy&#039;s rant was idiotic before he got to that point so I&#039;ll roll with it). It finances a number of much riskier 60 million projects, some of which will yield a better ROI percentage, but most likely not in dollar amounts. I believe that&#039;s called a mixed calculation and it&#039;s so incredibly basic that only an idiot would ignore it in his column and *I really shouldn&#039;t have to explain it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>No wonder everyone is looking at the lean, and very, very profitable 300 as the future of Hollywood:</i><br />
It would be more accurate to say it&#8217;s one, not particularly bright commentary. Come to think of, to write that column in that venue, the commenter probably isn&#8217;t that smart either. Your linking &#8230; well &#8230;.<br />
See*, return on investment isn&#8217;t everything. Blockbusters generate exposure and in the case of SM3, PotC3 and Shrek3 it&#8217;s a fairly safe bet that each will net 200-300 million. It really doesn&#8217;t matter if that&#8217;s a poor return on investment (it actually isn&#8217;t, but nevermind that, the guy&#8217;s rant was idiotic before he got to that point so I&#8217;ll roll with it). It finances a number of much riskier 60 million projects, some of which will yield a better ROI percentage, but most likely not in dollar amounts. I believe that&#8217;s called a mixed calculation and it&#8217;s so incredibly basic that only an idiot would ignore it in his column and *I really shouldn&#8217;t have to explain it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Moonlight</title>
		<link>http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/#comment-15744</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Moonlight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/04/25/spideys-expensive-secret/#comment-15744</guid>
		<description>I have to say that there is much more to 300 then just &quot;great visuals.&quot; Under all that blood was tear upon tear of great story telling... and who says the acting was wooden? Some people will just say the stupidest stuff, in the hopes that it will make them sound smart. I may go see Pirates and Harry Potter, but I&#039;ve had my fill of the others. I&#039;ll see them on TNT (or whatever) a year or so from now. 300 was worth getting a babysitter for. 300 showed me that the Watchmen, can be done. 300 showed me that we are the true heavyweights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say that there is much more to 300 then just &#8220;great visuals.&#8221; Under all that blood was tear upon tear of great story telling&#8230; and who says the acting was wooden? Some people will just say the stupidest stuff, in the hopes that it will make them sound smart. I may go see Pirates and Harry Potter, but I&#8217;ve had my fill of the others. I&#8217;ll see them on TNT (or whatever) a year or so from now. 300 was worth getting a babysitter for. 300 showed me that the Watchmen, can be done. 300 showed me that we are the true heavyweights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

