I posted something to this effect recently, but for me, the bigger issue as a film-goer is that there is a much smaller chance that we will get something great if all the studios are soley concerned with putting out stuff that is so derivative. Force Awakens is the best example of this. From a business POV, it was the perfect move. But creatively? Not so much. And so my enjoyment of that film is limited because it was so heavily derivative.Yeah, I don't like it either, personally. It means much less diverse pool of mega-budget movies. I mean, I totally get what Disney (and now WB) have chosen to do from a business perspective. Just too many huge budget mistakes. But at the same time, it's sad. But that's the new reality of Hollywood box office today. Unless your Go-To movies are ALL big mega-billion smashes the studios just can't absorb the losses from some of the riskier ones anymore.
But that's the double-edged sword of risk. Sometimes you'll hit pay dirt with a brilliant idea that works so well, critically and commercially. The Nolan Bat-films come to mind, or even the first Iron Man movie. But that's not usually the case. So, as we've seen for 20 years+, we get sequels and TV adaptations and prequels and re-boots instead of fresh franchise ideas (and of course, even Batman Begins was a reboot!).
With Batman V Superman, it's not the direction I would have gone, but I appreciate that WB allowed them to go in that direction. Even if, as abake says, studio interference will often still raise its ugly head.
