@doubtless1: I'm not sure of the timeline but I guess this makes sense in a nonsensical sort of way. Part of WB's mishandling of the DCU is the never-ending recasting of actors playing major roles in the franchise, while Marvel in 30+ movies and TV shows only recast two non-main characters (Rhodey and Fandral)...

@PrpleTrtleBuBum: Green Lantern wasn't one of the many characters that joined the Justice League at some point (like Spidey or BP did with the avengers) he was one of the seven funding members. That's a weird choice to not including him in a movie called The Justice League.

Zack Snyder movies grossed a total of over $3.313 billion according to Wikipedia, which pretty much should allow him the same leeway as any directors in that small club of high grossing movies.

@skyhighgam3r: We're missing a piece of the story here. What was the studio rationale for not having Green Lantern, a founding member of the Justice League, in the Justice League movie? It makes as much sense as Fantastic Four without the Thing, or X-Men without Beast. Maybe there's a reason the MCU is making bank while most DCU movies are not doing that great.

@nilsdoen: If you really think about what makes someone eligible to be a CEO (and you take a look at most CEOs ended up where they are) you may be able to see past what we’ve been fed over the last decades that somehow justify that people that used to make way more than others now make exponentially more. They are for all intent and purpose the equivalent of kings from the feudal ages, and why anyone would see that as a good thing is beyond me. Centuries of history to end up back to where we started.

@nilsdoen: Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed. There's about 200,000 CEOs just in the US. I'll go on a limb and guess that's a lot more than there are nuclear physicists for example, and they usually make in the low 6 figures. You can easily find a lot of other rare professions (chicken sexer, knifemaker, dice inspector at casinos, etc.) and "scarcity" doesn't necessarily translate to making more in a year than 100 people will in their lifetime.

Just because it's the way it is somewhere at some point in time doesn't mean that it's "normal" in the sense of what is "natural" (i.e. not the statistical or average normal). A lot of things are considered "normal" in other countries or were considered "normal" in the past, but that doesn't make them right. And that is the whole point. Just because something is the way it is here and now doesn't mean that it's the way it should be.

And sorry if you feel that my diction is a bit off, not all of us on the internet are native English speakers.

@nilsdoen: When you don't have any argument, I guess name calling is your only recourse. I'm probably way older than you btw (how do you figure a guy with a 17 year old account could be a teen unless you're exceptionally bad at math?) but I don't see how that validates either of our perspectives. However, I've lived long enough and in different countries to be aware that there's absolutely nothing "normal" about CEOs making 100x, 200x or 1000x more than the people who work in their companies. And frankly, unless you are making 8-figures (or you see yourself as a temporarily embarrassed millionaire as Steinbeck called them) there is no reason for you to think that is normal either.

@legacyrxt: People on the boards of big companies are usually on the boards of a bunch of other companies at the same time. It's not like they're losing their job.

@nilsdoen: Coders make their games, either for a big corporation like Activision or as an indie studio... but I'm sure you're aware of that? The good CEO being very scarce or not is something that can't be proved scientifically, so on that point we'll have to agree to disagree.

You can take anecdotal examples like Steve Jobs who seemingly brought Apple from the brink of bankruptcy to one of the highest capitalization level ever seen in any industry (although that last part was under Tim Cook), but even him admitted that he was only able to do that thanks to the talented people he worked with.

Secondly, being "a scarce resource" doesn't justify making 300x and up to 1000x what the typical worker in your company make. I'm not advocating for everybody to be paid the same or some unrealistic anarchist BS, but surely there's got to be a middle ground.

@nilsdoen: They generate less money than the people actually producing whatever the product they're selling. Coders working for Activision can make a game on their own. Bobby on his own can't make much, it's unlikely that what he remembers of the last time he programmed for the Apple II translates into anything nowadays.

@bdrtfm: Why? Cronyism. 40 years ago the CEO of a fortune 500 company made on average 20x more than its typical worker, which is already quite a gap. Nowadays it's 300x.