Is Graft Rampant in the Film Industry Part II The Case Of Madden Football and Iron Man

Every year the EA sports machine marches out their same ol song  New cover, new aspect of game to focus on, new player to curse.  In some ways it has evolved into something similar to bands with greatest hits albums.  Let's just reorganize all of their songs into a greatest hits, or "years" and resell it every once in awhile.  Madden has created this notion that it must be bought each and every year.  Better than any album or song with new technology could do.  Now I have incredibly little experience with computer programing, I'm just trying to use logic here.  The problem I have is that the makers of the game seem to suggest that working on Madden is a year round 80 hours a week job, constant programming, constantly improving, and always getting bigger.  Can something like that be true?  I guess I could see it being a big workflow if you are making it for a new system.  However Xbox 360 and PS3 are some of the oldest by age before next update.  Conjunct that with the fact of how fast technology evolves in every other realm seemingly right now.  Maybe updating rosters and players too, but other than that?  Isn't a majority of the work always already done for you every time you boot up?  Does someone have information saved on a floppy disk somewhere?  Also, the players are always just playing on this little square, this dome for an area is all you need to fill with information/characters, very simple geographically.  It's not like you need to design 600 complex detailed rooms.  Speaking of design, for the objects being football players that makes it simpler clothing wise and face wise since face masks and simple one main color jerseys and pants cover a lot of it.  I would also think almost all the layouts of the basic plays and types are already established and what fail percentage mixed with free will they will have every time. 

Of course each year they pump in a lot of promo videos, funny commercials, and they are going to show in behind the scenes featurettes that seem to pop up on each version, the "team" working with the players with all the ping pong balls, and doing facial recognition.  And studying engineering of hits, impact, physics, blah blah blah.  Why isn't that a template yet?  Why would you need to do that every year?  Yeah it's bells and whistles, it's see we are making it but, they can knock that out in a holiday shortened week, it is just messing around you just play it all year basically, jag bagging around with it.

Onto Iron Man 2, was there a contest for who got to write it that Dr. Pepper had?  Sorry to throw you under the bus Justin Theroux (sp), you were funny in Zoolander.  But Must have missed that contest.  Vanko?  The main villain, for the 10 minutes he was in the movie it was motivational.  I'm glad they made him so smart that he could hack into a weapon suppliers data base, build an army of war drones, create a suit better than Iron Man's essentially but still had to go through the black market for forged passports.  Why even bother to get forged passports and make a whole scene out of that, can't we as an audience just put 2 and 2 together that he got from Russia to Monte Carlo somehow sneakily.  Final battle probably should have lasted 18 minutes longer. What's the point of setting it in that woods area that comes out of nowhere and not mulch any of it, destruction just constantly around them as they are funny.  Just so you can stick it in the trailer so everyone things it is in the middle of nowhere which would seem kind of cool. Instead we just get this smooth iron man and war machine just mowing down everything with no problem.  Why wouldn't Vanko try to assassinate Tony Stark.  He was free, had access to vast amounts of machinary, weaponry, super computers, he could have gone unabomber on his ass at least a couple times, make another obstacle.  Or he could have hired Russian assassins.  to go after him while he is trying to make that atom.  Just to keep him busy.  Vanko knows he is working too.  Maybe Stark figures out Vanko wasn't killed.  And there is a big twist in his mind to maybe fill that gap as to why Stark wasn't curious about the details of Vanko's sudden and mysterious assassination in prison which would turn up in a probable DNA/dental test mere days later that it wasn't actually Vanko in the explosion.   

What is suspect after watching both of them a couple times is that Iron Man cost $140 million and Iron Man 2 cost $200 million.  Like Madden with special effects/graphics saved on a computer somewhere, sets designed, characters/crews established, and possibly fewer, yet easier to make 2 years later special effects why should the second one cost more.  I mean you have nerds in their basements making Iron Man videos with special effects at a somewhat decent level on next to nothing budgets.  Maybe there are pay offs for the first one making so much unexpectedly.  I wouldn't think RDJ would be able to request that much more money but then how much more, maybe $15 million plus back end?  No one really else could based off the reactions of replacing Katie Holmes and Terrence Howard, all characters besides the lead usually are expendable.  Usually, unless it bombs, then it is the first commandment in the book of reboot.  But it also didn't feel bigger in scope.  I guess they blew up a lot of cars, wasn't there a car commercial based of that around the time.  How much did it make off more product placement?  And did they really blow up real actual cars?   This isn't just Ironman 2, a lot of sequels do this.  Animated sequels is a weird turd.  Why again did Toy Story 3 cost almost 6x the amount as Toy Story?  What the hell computers were they using back in 1995?  Or a few years before since that was only the date it was released.  "Oh! Of course if it is a sequel it means the first one was popular so you get a bigger budget, more to throw around, make it rain, you get more spend more, human nature, then it is a write off of budget, boom". 

Why would it matter if a movie costs this much when it should cost less?  Maybe it is a good justification of the raising of ticket prices every year so it's a situation now where I have to pay to see a movie in a theater for a few bucks less than if I wait and just buy it on DVD.  Can you imagine today's father?  Today's father.  Working 60 hours a week at a job that he probably hates, and doesn't get any respect for, making $40,000 grand a year, with pathetic insurance.  Schlepping all 3 of his kids, plus 2 of the neighbor kids since they are somewhat friends but somehow didn't have any cash on them to goddamned Shrek 4 for $80 bucks including snacks, $110 if in Imax 3D, and one of the kids pukes from a seizure.  That guy shouldn't have to put up with yet another failure at the movies this time because the studios mishandled movie budgets and need to turn something around quick.  Not at my movie theater, not anymore. 

PS So is father secretly develops this global changing element but encrypts it in a model of queens, for his son to decipher years down the line but only does so because he developed an Iron suit to become a super hero.  Dude's a risk taker.  

Shrek 4 Budget was $165 million (imdb)